CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
24 subject to all of the conditions and protections as those for heritage trees as set forth in this chapter.
• “Street tree” means a tree planted in a planting strip or planting easement. • “City tree” means any tree growing on any city-owned property, right-of-way or easement dedicated to the city.
• “Master street tree list” means the list of trees approved for planting in planting strips and planting easements, as approved by the city council.
11.3 Chapter 12.24.090 General Provisions
A. No person, other than the director or his or her authorized representative, shall plant or prune any tree within the planting strip or planting easement along any street without first obtaining a written permit to do so from the director. The request for such a permit shall state the type and number of trees, planting and pruning procedures, the location and such other information as may from time to time be required by the director.
B. Any tree work or tree removal within the city right-of-way requires an encroachment permit. Encroachment permit fees for pruning or removal of street trees will be waived.
C. All maintenance, removal, and replacement of trees shall be performed in compliance with the requirements of this chapter and any tree standards adopted by the city.
11.4 Chapter 12.24.130 Pruning, Maintenance and Removal of Protected Trees A. No person shall cut or prune, below or above ground, brace, move, remove, cause to cut, alter, or perform such other acts with respect to any protected tree without first obtaining a written permit to do so from the director. The application shall state the number and identify the location of each protected tree for which a permit is sought and shall contain other pertinent information as the director may require. The application may also include documentation of any type, including written recommendations from a certified arborist concerning the health, quality and desirability of alternatives to the tree or trees in question. The necessity for the requested action shall be demonstrated to the director by the applicant.
11.5 Chapter 12.24.140 Damage to Protected Trees
A. Except as permitted in this chapter, no person shall break, injure, deface, mutilate, kill, remove or destroy any protected tree; or knowingly cause or permit any wire charged with electricity to come into contact with any protected tree; or place, apply, attach or keep attached to any such tree a guard or stake intended for the protection thereof, any wire, rope, sign, paint or other substance, structure, thing or device of any kind or nature whatsoever; or place or maintain any stone, cement or other substance so that it shall impede the free access of water or air to the roots of any protected tree.
B. Any party determined to have caused damage to any protected tree as described in subsection A of this section shall be liable for the cost of repair or replacement of the tree. Costs shall be based on Napa County landscape industry costs and on tree valuation standards set by the International Society of Arboriculture. Such moneys shall be paid to the city and shall be used to repair or replace the damaged tree.
Agenda Item #11.1.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
25 11.6 Chapter 12.24.150 Protection of Protected Trees During and After Construction Activity
A. During any construction activity within the drip line of a protected tree, inside or outside the public right-of-way, no person shall, without permission from the director of public works, do the following:
1. Change the amount of irrigation provided to any protected tree from that which was provided prior to the commencement of construction activity.
2. Trench, grade or pave into the root zone of a protected tree;
3. Change, by more than two feet, grade elevations within an area from the drip line of a protected tree outward to thirty (30) feet in distance;
4. Park or operate any motor vehicle within the drip line area of any protected tree except in designated parking areas;
5. Place or store any equipment or construction materials within the drip line area of any protected tree except in designated parking areas;
6. Attach any signs, ropes, cables or any other items to any protected tree;
7. Cut or trim any branch of a protected tree for temporary construction purposes;
8. Place or allow to flow into or over the root zone area of any protected tree any oil, fuel, concrete mix or other deleterious substance.
B. Where written permission of the director is sought under this section, the director may grant such permission with such reasonable conditions as may be necessary to effectuate the intent and purpose of this chapter.
C. A protected tree shall be protected after construction activity in accordance with conditions imposed by the city and/or specifications adopted by the tree committee.
11.6.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
None of the trees on the project site would be considered as Protected Trees, as none of the trees meet the definition (pursuant to Chapter 12.24.020 of the Municipal Code and described above) of a heritage tree, protected replacement tree, street tree, and/or a city tree. Therefore, no tree removal permits or other mitigation for tree impacts are required.
12. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REGULATIONS A CEQA lead agency must determine if a proposed activity constitutes a project requiring further review pursuant to the CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA, a lead agency would have to determine if there could be significant adverse impacts to the environment from a proposed project.
Typically, if within the city limits, the city would be the CEQA lead agency. If a discretionary Agenda Item #11.1.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
26 permit (i.e., conditional use permit) providing sufficient discretion to allow meaningful input into the project design would be required for a project, the lead agency must comply with CEQA. In some cases, there are “Categorical Exemptions” that apply to the proposed activity; thus, the activity is exempt from CEQA. The Categorical Exemptions are provided in the CEQA Guidelines. There are also Statutory Exemptions in CEQA that must be investigated for any proposed project. Further, “CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15183.) Thus, Section 15183 provides another type of exemption. If the project is not exempt from CEQA, the lowest level of review typically reserved for projects with no significant effects on the environment would be for the lead agency to prepare a “Negative Declaration.” If a proposed project would have only minimal impacts that can be mitigated to a level of no significance pursuant to the CEQA, then a “Mitigated Negative Declaration” (MND) is typically prepared by the lead agency. Finally, those projects that may have significant effects on the environment, or that have impacts that can’t be mitigated to a level considered less than significant pursuant to the CEQA, typically must be reviewed via an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). All CEQA review documents are subject to public circulation, and comment periods.
Section 15380 of CEQA defines “endangered” species as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors. “Rare” species are defined by CEQA as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens; or the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened” as that term is used in FESA. The CEQA Guidelines also state that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will “substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species.” The significance of impacts to a species under CEQA, therefore, must be based on analyzing actual rarity and threat of extinction to that species despite its legal status or lack thereof.
12.1.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This report has been prepared as a Biology section that is suitable for incorporation by the CEQA lead agency (in this case, City of St. Helena) into a Consistency Determination pursuant to CEQA Section 15183. This document addresses potential impacts to species that would be defined as endangered or rare pursuant to Section 15380 of the CEQA.
Agenda Item #11.1.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
27 13. IMPACTS ANALYSIS
Below the criteria used in assessing impacts to Biological Resources is presented.
13.1 Significance Criteria
A significant impact is determined using CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA §21068, a significant effect on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15382, a significant effect on the environment is further defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. Other federal, State, and local agencies’ considerations and regulations are also used in the evaluation of significance of proposed actions.
Direct and indirect adverse impacts to biological resources are classified as “significant,” “potentially significant,” or “less than significant.” Biological resources are broken down into four categories: vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and regulated “waters of the United States” and/or stream channels.
13.1.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
13.1.1.1 Plants, Wildlife, Waters
In accordance with Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the CEQA Guidelines, implementing the project would have a significant biological impact if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS.
• Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected “wetlands” (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State HCP.
Agenda Item #11.1.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
28 13.1.1.2 Waters of the United States and State.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., which includes wetlands, as discussed in the bulleted item above, and also includes “other waters” (stream channels, rivers) (33 CFR Parts 328 through 330). Substantial impacts to Corps regulated areas on a project site would be considered a significant adverse impact. Similarly, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB regulates impacts to waters of the State. Thus, substantial impacts to RWQCB regulated areas on a project site would also be considered a significant adverse impact.
13.1.1.3 Stream Channels
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates activities that divert, obstruct, or alter stream flow, or substantially modify the bed, channel, or bank of a stream which the CDFW typically considers to include riparian vegetation. Any proposed activity that would result in substantial modifications to a natural stream channel would be considered a significant adverse impact.
14. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The project site was previously developed and because it has been heavily disturbed, it does not provide much value in terms of biological resources. The most significant biological resource on or near the project site is the offsite seasonal drainage along the southern project site boundary that supports riparian woodland habitat. The riparian trees provide nesting, foraging, resting and stopover habitat for birds and resting and foraging habitat for disturbance-adapted mammals. In this section we provide recommendations to protect the significant biological resources near the project site and in the landscaping design to meet the policies of the City of St. Helena’s General Plan.
In this section we discuss potential impacts to sensitive biological resources that could occur from project development as shown on the Site Plan (Attachment A). We follow each impact with a condition of project approval that, when implemented, would reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible.
Checklist Items are listed below. Where there would be significant impacts to checklist categories, these impacts and required conditions of project approval are fully discussed in the sections below.
Would the Proposed Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS? No. The site has been previously developed, is heavily disturbed, and vegetated with ornamental landscaping and ruderal herbaceous vegetation. It does not provide habitat for any candidate, sensitive, or special-status species.
Agenda Item #11.1.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
29 Would the Proposed Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?
No. The riparian vegetation that extends onto the project site from the offsite creek would not be impacted under the current development proposal. There are no other significant or sensitive communities onsite.
Would the Proposed Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected “wetlands” (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No. There are no state or federally protected “wetlands” (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) on the project site.
Would the Proposed Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No. The Proposed Project would not adversely impact or interfere with wildlife movement corridors. The project site is an anthropogenic habitat that is surrounded by developed properties on all sides. The project site does not serve as a wildlife movement corridor.
Would the Proposed Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No. There are no proposed impacts to trees considered to be Protected Trees under the City of St.
Helena Tree Ordinance.
Would the Proposed Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No. There are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans in force in the City of St. Helena.
14.1 Impact BIO-1: With Compliance with Applicable General Plan Policies, Development of the Proposed Project Would Not Have a Potentially Significant Impact on Nesting Raptors and Passerine Birds (No Peculiar Impact)
Nesting raptors (birds of prey) and passerine (perching) birds are protected pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513), and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The oaks present on the project site provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors and passerine birds. In addition, the ruderal herbaceous cover on the project site provides suitable nesting habitat for ground-nesting birds. Since, typically, most birds can fly out of harm’s way, development of the project site would not be expected to harm adult birds. However, nesting birds are susceptible to take through disturbance that harms eggs or young. Pursuant to General Agenda Item #11.1.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
30 Plan Implementing Action OS1.O, the project proponent must avoid impacts to nesting birds by conducting preconstruction nesting bird surveys and implementing avoidance measures. The city will impose its standard condition based on Implementing Action OS1.O, which is listed below as BIO-1.
14.2 Standard Condition of Approval BIO-1. Nesting Birds To avoid impacts to nesting birds, a nesting bird survey must be conducted no earlier than 14 days prior to commencing with construction work if this work would begin between February 1 and August 31. The nesting bird survey must be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around the project site. The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where raptors could be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations or noise. The nesting bird survey should include examination of all suitable nesting habitats within 300 feet of the entire project site. Adjacent properties will not be surveyed. A nesting bird survey report should be prepared upon completion of the survey and provided to the City of St. Helena with any recommendations required for establishment of protective buffers as necessary to protect nesting birds.
If birds are identified nesting on or within the zone of influence of the construction project, a qualified biologist should establish a temporary protective buffer around the nest(s). The buffer must be of sufficient size to protect the nesting site from construction-related disturbance and should be established by a qualified ornithologist or biologist with extensive experience working with nesting birds near and on construction sites. Typically, adequate nesting buffers are 75 feet from the nest site or nest tree dripline for small birds and up to 300 feet for sensitive nesting birds that include several raptor species known from the region of the project site. The nest buffer should be staked with orange construction fencing.
No construction or earth-moving activity should occur within any established nest protection buffer prior to September 1 unless it is determined by a qualified ornithologist/biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones, or that the nesting cycle is otherwise completed. In the region of the project site, most species complete nesting by mid-July. This date can be significantly earlier or later and would have to be determined by the qualified biologist. At the end of the nesting cycle, or abandonment of the nest by its occupants, as determined by a qualified biologist, temporary nesting buffers may be removed, and construction may commence in established nesting buffer areas without further regard for the nest site.
Agenda Item #11.1.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
31 15. LITERATURE CITED
Baldwin D.H, Goldman D.H., Keil D.J., Patterson R, Rosatti T.J., Wilken D.H. (ed.). 2012. The Jepson Manual Vascular Plants of California: Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1568 pps.
Beier, P. and S. Loe. 1992. "In my experience.." a checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin Vol. 20(4): 6.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016. Complete list of amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species in California. Published September 2008; updated May 2016.
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Data Base). 2024. RareFind 6. Computer printout for special-status species within a 5-mile radius of the project site. California Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA.
Holland, V.L. & D.J. Keil. 1989. California vegetation. Biological Sciences Department/ California Polytechnic State University. San Luis Obispo, California.
Holland, V.L. & D.J. Keil. 1995. California vegetation. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Table 1
Plant Species Observed on the Spring Grove Project Site monk & associates
Gymnosperms
Cupressaceae
Sequoia sempervirens Redwood
Angiosperms - Dicots
Apocynaceae
*Nerium oleander Oleander
Fagaceae
Quercus agrifolia var. agrifolia Coast live oak
Quercus lobata Valley oak
Lythraceae
*Punica granatum Pomegranate
Moraceae
*Ficus carica Fig
Myrtaceae
*Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus
Oleaceae
*Ligustrum japonicum Japanese privet
*Ligustrum lucidum Glossy privet
*Olea europaea Olive
Rosaceae
*Prunus cerasifera Cherry plum
*Pyracantha coccinea Scarlet firethorn
Sapindaceae
*Acer palmatum Japanese maple
*Acer saccharinum Silver maple
Angiosperms -Monocots
Poaceae
*Avena barbata Slender wild oat
*Bromus diandrus Ripgut grass
*Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess
*Phyllostachys aurea Fishpole bamboo
* Indicates a non-native species Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item #11.1.
Table 2
Wildlife Species Observed on the Spring Grove Project Site
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Reptiles
Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis
Birds
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus
Turkey Vulture Streptopelia decaocto
California Quail Callipepla californica
Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna
Acorn Woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
California Scrub Jay Aphelocoma californica
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula
American Robin Turdus migratorius
Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata
California Towhee Melozone crissalis
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis
House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus
Lesser Goldfinch Spinus psaltria
Mammals
Fox squirrel Sciurus niger
Agenda Item #11.1.
TREES:
Acacia cultriformis Knife Acacia 24” Box L
Acer ssp. Autumn Blaze Red Maple 36” Box M
Araucarua heterophylla Norfolk Island Pine 36” Box M
Arbutus ‘Marina’ Marina Strawberry Tree 36” Box L
Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree 36” Box L
Cercidium ‘Desert Museum’ Desert Museum Palo Verde 36” Box VL Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 24” Box M
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud 24” Box VL
X Chitalpa tashkentensis ‘Pink Dawn’ Chitalpa Chitalpa 36” Box L Cornus ssp. Dogwood 24” Box M
Ginkgo biloba ‘Autumn Gold’ Autumn Gold Maidenhair Tree 36” Box M Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 36” Box M
Lagerstroemia spp. Crape Myrtle 24” Box L
Laurus nobilis Bay Laurel 24” Box L
Liriodendon tulipifera Tulip Tree 36” Box M
Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia 36” Box M
Magnolia stellata Star Magnolia 24” Box M
Melalueca quinquervia Paperbark Tree 24” Box L
Olea europaea ‘Swan Hill’ Olive 36” Box VL
Pinus halepensis Aleppo pine 24” Box L
Pinus pinea Italian Stone Pine 36” Box L
Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache 36” Box L
Platanus x acerfolia ‘Columbia’ London Plane Tree 36” Box M Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 36” Box M
Podocarpus gracilior African Fern Pine 36” Box M
Podocarpus elongatus ‘Monmal’ Icee Blue Yellow-wood 24” Box M Prunus ssp. Cherry Plum 24” Box L/M
Punica granatum Pomegranate 24” Box L
Pyrus ssp. Pear 36” Box M
Quercus ssp. Valley Oak 36” Box L/M
Rhus lancea African Sumac 36” Box L
Tillia ssp. Linden 24” Box M
Ulmus parvifolia ‘True Green’ True Green Chinese Elm 36” Box M Umbellularia californica California Bay 24” Box M
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS
S H R U B A N D
GROUNDCOVER:
Acacia redolens Prostrate Acacia 1 gal. VL
Agave spp. Agave 5 gal. VL
Aloe spp. Aloe 5 gal. L
Alogyne huegelli Blue Hibiscus 15 gal. L
Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita 5 gal. L
Artemisia ssp. Sagebrush 1 gal. L
Asparagus densiflorus Asparagus Fern 5 gal. M
Bouteloea gracilis Blue Grama 1 gal. L
Buxus japonica ‘Green Beauty’ Japanese Boxwood 5 gal. M Callistemon spp. Bottle Brush 5 gal. L
Carex tumulicola Foothill Sedge 1 gal. L
Chondropetalum tectorum Small Cape Rush 5 gal. L
Cistus ‘Sunset’ Magenta Rockrose 5 gal. L
Cotoneaster spp. Cotoneaster 5 gal. L
Crassula spp. Jade Plant 5 gal. L
Dasyliron spp. Desert Spoon 5 gal. VL
Dianella ssp. Flax Lily 5 gal. L
Dietes bicolor Fortnight Lily 5 gal. L
Festuca mairei Atlas Fescue 5 gal. L
Hesperaloe spp. Yucca 5 gal. L
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon 15 gal. VL
Ilex spp. Holly 5 gal. M
Juncus patens California Gray Rush 5 gal. M
Lavandula ssp. Lavender 5 gal. L
Leucophyllum spp. Barometer Bush 5 gal. L
Leymus condensatus ‘Canyon Prince’ Canyon Prince Wild Rye 5 gal. L Ligustrum japonicum ‘Texanum’ Waxleaf Privet 5 gal. L
Lomandra spp. Dwarf Mat Rush 5 gal. L
Myoporum p. ‘Putah Creek’ Creeping Myoporum 1 gal. L
Myrtus communis Common Myrtle 5 gal. L
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS
VINES AND
Bougainvillea spp.
Calliandra haematocephala
Distictis ssp.
Eriobotrya deflexa
Jasminum polyanthum
Lonicera japonica
Macfadyena unguis-cati
Magnolia grandiflora ‘Little Gem’
Trachelospermum jasmnoides
Rosa banksiae
Vitis ssp.
Olea europaea ‘Montra’
Pittosporum tobira variegata
Phormium spp.
Prunus caroliniana ‘Bright n Tight’
Rhaphiolepis spp.
Rosmarinus officinalis
Rosa ssp.
Salvia ‘Bees Bliss’
Trachelospermum asiaticum
Westringia spp.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
SPRING STREET
LEGEND
Focal Tre
Large Ac
Medium
Basin Tre
Flowerin
Fruiting T
Small Pa
Large Ac
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Scale: 1”= 30’-0”
CONCEPTUAL PLANT PALETTE
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
FDS
Planning | Design | Collaboration
FOURNIER DESIGN STUDIO
[email protected] (562) 719-4650
Santa Rosa, CA
Brittain Townhomes FDS
FOURNIER DESIGN STUDIO
Sebastopol and Brittain Rd. City Ventures 2nd City Submittal 2022#12345
CONCEPTUAL PERIMETER FENCE ‘A’ - 8’-0”H
SCALE: NTS
CONCEPTUAL PERIMETER FENCE ‘B’ - 6’-0”H
SCALE: NTS
Spring Grove
1447~1505~1515 Spring Street
St. Helena, CA
APN: 009-590-003, -005, -010
FDS #24010
September 30th, 2024
G-5
Agenda Item #11.1.
SPRING STREET
BLDG 6 BLDG 1
BLDG 3 BLDG 2
BLDG 4
BLDG 5 STREET A STREET C
UNIT 1
UNIT 1
UNIT 1
UNIT 1 UNIT 3 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 3 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 4
UNIT 4 UNIT 4
UNIT 4
UNIT 4
UNIT 4 UNIT 2
UNIT 3
UNIT 4 UNIT 2
UNIT 3 UNIT 3 UNIT 3 UNIT 3 UNIT 3 UNIT 2
UNIT 4 UNIT 2
UNIT 3
UNIT 3
UNIT 4
UNIT 3
UNIT 4
UNIT 3
UNIT 2
UNIT 3
S
S
S
S
ADA ADA ADA ADA ADA
STREET B SITE LAYOUT
C1.1 TENTATIVE MAP SPRING GROVE adobe associates, inc. 1220 N. Dutton Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401 P. (707) 541-2300 F. (707) 541-2301 Website: www.adobeinc.com "A Service You Can Count On!" civil engineering I land surveying I wastewater
SITE LAYOUT LEGEND
HATCHING LEGEND: Agenda Item #11.1.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
November 19, 2025
Mr. Mike Janusek, AICP
Senior Planner
City of St. Helena
Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Mike,
We appreciate your thorough review of the Spring Grove project. Please find below our response to how we have addressed public input and Planning Commission early feedback since the Planning Commission meeting of January 21, 2025.
Thank you,
Kelso G. Barnett
cc. Maya DeRosa
Xinia Gamero
Michael Brewer
Agenda Item #11.1.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
Project Screening
The entire community will be enclosed by a wood perimeter fence designed to provide both privacy and a consistent visual edge. The fence height will be 6 feet in most areas; however, within the 50 feet of the property line/right of way on Spring Street, fencing will be reduced to 3 feet to maintain open sightlines in order to comply with the city’s vision triangle and applicable design standards.
Beyond fencing, the landscape plan incorporates significant new planting to create a natural, attractive, and effective vegetative screen. Along the eastern boundary—where Spring Grove is adjacent to St. James Drive—the project will install six 36-inch-box Carolina Cherry Laurels. These evergreen trees are fastgrowing, typically reaching heights of 20–35 feet and widths of 15–20 feet, with a dense pyramidal canopy that provides year-round privacy.
The southern property line will be softened and screened with a combination of four Western Sycamores and three Western Redbuds. The Western Sycamore is a fast-growing deciduous tree, commonly growing 2–3 feet per year. At maturity it can reach 40–80 feet in height with a broad 30–50-foot spread. While it drops leaves in winter, this location is adjacent to the open-space interface on the St. Helena Park development, where seasonal leaf-off is appropriate and helps maintain a more open feel toward the shared open area. The Western Redbud is a moderate-growing deciduous tree, typically reaching 15–20 feet in height and 15–20 feet in width. It grows roughly 1–2 feet per year and is valued for its dense branching, spring blossoms, and summer privacy. Although deciduous, its branching structure still provides some winter screening.
Along Spring Street, the project will be screened primarily through the preservation of existing mature redwoods and sycamores, supplemented with additional understory and mid-story plantings, including Vine Maples, Rocky Mountain Maples, Coast Live Oaks, and Engelmann Oaks. The Vine Maple is a moderate-growing deciduous tree or large shrub, typically growing 1–2 feet per year. Mature size ranges from 10–20 feet tall and wide, forming layered, multi-stemmed screening. The Coast Live Oak is a slowto-moderate growing evergreen oak, adding roughly 12–24 inches of growth per year. At maturity it can reach 20–70 feet tall with a broad 20–30-foot canopy. Its year-round foliage provides consistent evergreen screening. Also in the oak family, the Engelmann Oak is a slow-growing semi-evergreen oak, usually adding less than 12 inches of growth per year. Mature height ranges from 20–60 feet with a 20–40-foot spread. Though technically semi-deciduous, it generally retains most of its leaves year-round in our climate, making it effective for long-term screening.
Additional shrub layers will reinforce the project’s planting design, including Woodleaf Privet and Toyon.
These shrubs are fast-growing and evergreen, typically adding 2 feet per year, maturing at 8-12 feet tall and 6-10 feet wide.
Taken together, this combination of fencing, preserved mature trees, new evergreen and deciduous plantings, and layered shrub material will provide a robust, attractive, and context-appropriate screening strategy for Spring Grove on all sides.
Agenda Item #11.1.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
Feedback: Neighborhood Outreach, Providing Smaller Units & Community Gardens We received extensive community input during the January 21, 2025 Planning Commission study session.
We took that feedback seriously and immediately followed up with a dedicated Open House on February 20, 2025 at the Native Sons Hall on Spring Street, just steps from the project site. This informal setting allowed neighbors to speak with us one-on-one, walk through the plans in detail, and share both their support and their concerns directly.
Across all of these engagements; emails, in-person conversations, comments at public meetings, and comments on Next Door, the community’s feedback has been mixed. Many residents expressed support for increasing “missing-middle” homeownership opportunities in St. Helena, especially for young families and first-time homebuyers. Others shared concerns about the project’s density, height, and architectural expression. We listened carefully and committed to making meaningful improvements in the areas where adjustments were feasible.
Density is set by the municipal code and the Housing Element designation for this site, which has a direct effect on our overall building height and our required unit sizes; as such, those parameters could not be reduced without undermining both the City’s housing obligations and the core purpose of this project.
However, within those constraints, we made a series of targeted design refinements aimed at softening the buildings, improving compatibility with nearby homes, and enhancing the visual character of the neighborhood. These enhancements include:
Architectural and Aesthetic Improvements
• Increased the primary roof pitch from 8:12 to 11:12 to create a more traditional residential profile and reduce the appearance of massing.
• Removed the top parapet wall to improve roof articulation and achieve a cleaner, more refined ridgeline.
• Introduced undulating ridgelines with gable peaks raised approximately 3 feet to create variation and visual interest.
• Added accent metal roof sheds at key elevations to break up facades and add high-quality material expression.
• Added second- and third-floor balcony decks to create depth, shadow lines, and more humanscaled architecture. • Increased the level of siding detail throughout the elevations to enrich texture and avoid flat or monolithic façades.
• Added vine-trellis systems along garage walls to introduce greenery and soften the appearance of auto-oriented elements.
• Added enhanced architectural fixtures at gable ends and other focal points for additional craftsmanship and detail.
• Provided varied garage-door styles to better individualize units and reduce visual repetition.
Agenda Item #11.1.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
• Engaged a professional colorist to refine and diversify the color palette in a way that complements the existing neighborhood fabric.
After considering the feedback received during the January study session, we evaluated the idea of incorporating community garden beds into the common open space. While community gardens can be successful in some developments, our experience across multiple City Ventures communities shows that they tend to be highly variable; some are heavily utilized, while others are quickly abandoned, becoming maintenance challenges and detracting from the quality of shared spaces. Rather than installing garden beds that may not reflect the preferences or lifestyles of the future residents, we believe the most responsible and community-oriented approach is to allow the future HOA to make this decision once the neighborhood is established. This ensures that any garden areas created will reflect genuine resident interest, be maintained appropriately, and become an amenity that truly adds value to the community.
While we could not change every aspect raised by neighbors, we worked within the boundaries of the development code and Housing Element requirements to make improvements that materially enhance the project’s compatibility with its surroundings. Our goal has always been to design a neighborhood that feels at home in St. Helena—respectful of the community’s character, aligned with the City’s long-range housing policies, and accessible to the households this project is intended to serve.
Circulation & Fire Access
The project’s circulation system and fire access design have been reviewed and approved by the St.
Helena Fire Department, including the City’s Fire Inspector. The site plan meets all applicable requirements of the California Fire Code, including turning radii, street widths, hydrant placement, emergency access routes, and unobstructed fire-lane clearances. While feedback was received adding a secondary point of egress (EVA/fire access), state fire code allows an exemption for up to 200 units if all units are equipped with fire sprinklers. The project will be designed with an NFPA-13 system and all units will have fire sprinklers.
In addition, we commissioned a Transportation Impact Study to evaluate on-site circulation, emergency vehicle operations, driveway performance, and interaction with the public street network. Technical review confirm that the project is safe, functional, and capable of supporting timely emergency response:
o While private streets are not subject to city standards, the internal streets are 28 feet wide, which exceeds City standards for public streets and accommodating two-way travel and emergency access.
o While no on-street parking is permitted on these internal streets, ensuring clear and unobstructed fire lanes, the project will exceed parking requirements. Two side-by-side parking spaces within garages will be provided for each unit, exceeding the 1.5 parking spaces required by code. Guest parking also exceeds code requirements by providing 11 spaces. o A 200-foot driveway connects the site to Spring Street. Although the internal circulation pattern resembles a parking-lot drive aisle rather than a public street, both vehicle speeds and vehicle Agenda Item #11.1.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
volumes will be low and drivers are expected to proceed cautiously—conditions that reduce conflict potential and improve overall safety.
o The perpendicular guest parking spaces create typical interactions found in commercial and residential lots throughout the Bay Area; the Transportation Impact Study found no unique or unacceptable safety concerns.
o Wayfinding and delivery-parking signage will be installed to prevent delivery vehicles from obstructing garages or internal circulation routes, further supporting safe operations and unimpaired access for fire responders.
Both the Fire Department and the transportation study confirm that the project is fully compliant, safe, and operationally sound. Emergency access meets or exceeds all City and California Fire Code standards; internal circulation is appropriate for a residential environment with low speeds and low volumes; and no unique hazards or conflicts were identified.
Taken together, the evidence demonstrates that the development will function safely from both a circulation and fire-response perspective and will not adversely affect emergency response times.
Lighting / Off-Site Glare
The project’s lighting plan was carefully designed to prevent off-site glare and minimize light spillover onto neighboring residential properties along Spring Street, St. James Drive, and the surrounding areas.
The photometric layout shows that all illumination levels taper down to near-zero at the property boundaries. This is achieved through the use of fully shielded and house-side-shielded fixtures, including cutoff post-top luminaires, wall-mounted LED fixtures with controlled distribution patterns, and lowheight bollards located away from sensitive edges. The placement of fixtures is oriented inward toward internal drive aisles, walkways, and common areas, ensuring light is directed only where needed for safety and not toward adjacent homes.
In addition to shielding and directional control, the lighting plan incorporates appropriately warmtemperature LEDs, and precise photometric modeling to ensure compliance with modern lighting standards and to maintain a residential character. The combination of controlled optics, house-side shielding, and low-intensity fixture selection results in extremely limited light trespass. Together, these measures ensure that the project provides safe, adequate illumination for residents and visitors while protecting the privacy, comfort, and nighttime environment of the surrounding neighborhood.
Agenda Item #11.1.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
SPRING GROVE
WATER NEUTRALITY REPORT
Updated
November 10, 2025
A. BACKGROUND
To ensure compliance with the City of St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy for Development, City Ventures is submitting a water neutrality analysis for the proposed Spring Grove Subdivision.
This analysis outlines the anticipated water consumption for the development (per St. Helena’s water neutral policy) and presents potential options for water off-set mitigation.
B. CURRENT THEORETICAL DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
There are currently three homes on the property: one 4-bedroom, one 3-bedroom, and one 2-bedroom.
According to the St. Helena Water Neutral Policy for Development section on water demand analysis for existing water use, the analysis should use 150 gpd/bedroom. This equates to a theoretical domestic water demand to be 1,350 gallons per day for the current homes.
Address Bedrooms Gal/Bdrm
1447 Spring 4 150
1505 Spring 2 150
1515 Spring 3 150
Gal/Day 1,350
Gal/Year 492,750
* Current landscape irrigation not supplied by city water but by well onsite C. PROPOSED THEORETICAL DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
The proposed development includes 41 lots with side-by-side townhomes, consisting of 41 3+ bedroom units. Water demand for the project is calculated based on the water usage of fixtures and appliances, determined by the number of occupants, in accordance with the City of St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy for Development.
Agenda Item #11.1.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
The following outlines the water performance requirements for fixtures and appliances.
Fixture # Unit Days Occupant
Toilet 3 Flushes 1 1
Sink Faucet 0.25 Minute 3 1
Showerhead 8 Minute 1 1
Kitchen Faucet 4 Minute 1 1
Clothes Washer 0.37 Load 1 1
Dish Washer 0.1 Load 1 1
Water usage from fixtures and appliances will comply with the minimum standards set by the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) and the City of St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy.
Fixture Gal Unit
Toilet 1.3 Flushes
Sink Faucet 1.5 Minute
Showerhead 2 Minute
Kitchen Faucet 1.5 Minute
Clothes Washer 19.7 Load
Dish Washer 6.3 Load
In accordance with the City of St. Helena's policy, the analysis assumes two occupants per bedroom (including a den/office/optional bedroom). Following the City's Water Neutral Policy for Development, the estimated domestic water demand for the proposed project is 11,182 gallons per day. The calculations are included below.
Number of Rooms Number of Occupants
Unit Bdrm Other Total
Per
Rm.
Per
Unit
#
Units Total
Plan 1 3 0 3 2 6 4 24
Plan 2 3 1 4 2 8 5 40
Plan 3 3 1 4 2 8 15 120
Plan 4 3 1 4 2 8 17 136
Total Number of Occupants* 320
* Total number of occupants per St. Helena Water Neutral Policy; even if the total number of residents per home exceeds St. Helena’s average household size, the projected number of actual occupants in a real world scenario is projected to be significantly lower.
Agenda Item #11.1.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
Fixture Unit Times/Day Gal/Unit Occupants Gal/Day
Toilet 1 3 1 320 1,248
Sink Faucet 0 3 2 320 360
Showerhead 8 1 2 320 5,120
Kitchen Faucet 4 1 2 320 1,920
Clothes Washer 0 1 20 320 2,332
Dish Washer 0 1 6 320 202
Total Gal/Day 11,182
Total Gal/Year 4,081,459
D. THEORETICAL LANDSCAPE WATER DEMAND
Landscape irrigation will be provided by the City of St. Helena and the current well will be abandoned.
Per Landscape Sheet L-7, the estimated total water usage per year (ETWU) is 285,008 gallons, or 781 gallons per day.
E. PROPOSED WATER NEUTRALITY MITIGATION
The existing theoretical water usage on the property is 1,350 gallons per day, and the proposed developments theoretical water usage is 11,963 gallons per day. Therefore, to comply with water neutrality the development must offset 10,613 gallons per day.
Spring Grove Theoretical Water Usage Gal/Day
Homes 11,182
Landscape 781
Total 11,963
Existing Theoretical Water Usage 1,350
Gal/Day to Offset 10,613
This can be done by either retrofitting residential and non-residential properties with low flow devices or by paying an in-lieu fee that is equivalent to the cost of retrofitting enough homes, as provided by Municipal Code 13.12.020. The calculation of the in-lieu fee is attached below.
F. IN-LIEU RETROFIT FEES
The proposed project will increase water usage by 10,613 gallons per day. Therefore, per city policy, the project proposes to pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the cost of retrofitting showerheads, faucets, and toilets in existing homes to comply with the required water savings.
Agenda Item #11.1.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
The theoretical water use for homes with retrofitted low flow fixtures are summarized in the table below:
Theoretical Water use with retrofitted low flow fixtures per residence Flow Occupants
Fixture Rate Duration Daily Uses Number* Gal/Day
Toilet 2 8 1 7.8 125
Sink Faucet 1.5 0.25 3 7.8 9
Showerhead 1.5 4 1 7.8 47
Kitchen Faucet 1.3 1 3 7.8 30
Clothes Washer 19.7 1 0.37 7.8 57
Dish Washer 6.3 1 0.1 7.8 5
Total Gal/Day - 1 Home (Rooms - Spring Grove Blended Avg.) 273 Total Gal/Day - 41 Homes (Rooms - Spring Grove Blended Avg.) 11,182 *Number of occupants (7.8) is a blended average of the proposed project’s number of residents per unit Theoretical Water Use Saving per Residence
Gal/Rm Rooms* Total
Theoretical Water Use - Old Fixtures 150 3.9 585
Theoretical Water Use - New Fixtures 273
Savings 312
*Number of rooms (3.9) is a blended average of the proposed project’s number of rooms per unit To offset the anticipated water demand of the proposed project, 34 residences will need retrofitting with low flow fixtures.
Required Residences needing retrofitting
Gal/Day
New Water Demand 10,613
Water Savings per Home (Retrofit) 312
Residences Needing Retrofit 34
Agenda Item #11.1.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
The expected cost of retrofitting existing homes with new low flow fixtures are summarized in the table below:
Retrofit Material Cost per residence
Fixture Qty Cost/Unit Total
Showerhead 2 $139.06 $278.12
Sink Faucet 2 $247.98 $495.96
Kitchen Faucet 1 $341.08 $341.08
Toilet 2 $114.69 $229.38
Clothes Washer 1 $698.00 $698.00
Dish Washer 1 $449.00 $449.00
Total Estimated Material Cost Per Home $2,491.54
Retrofit Labor Cost Per residence
Fixture Hours Qty Hourly Rate Total Cost
Showerhead 1 2 $110.00 $220.00
Sink Faucet 1 2 $110.00 $220.00
Kitchen Faucet 1 1 $110.00 $110.00
Toilet 2 2 $110.00 $440.00
Clothes Washer 2 1 $110.00 $220.00
Dish Washer 2 1 $110.00 $220.00
Total Estimated Labor Cost per Residence $1,430.00
The total estimated cost is the sum of the estimated material and labor cost per residence.
Total Retrofit Cost
Material Cost $2,492
Labor Cost $1,430
Total Cost $3,922
Residences Needing Retrofit 34
Total Estimated In-Lieu Fee $133,348
Agenda Item #11.1.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
Proposed low flow fixture costs are listed below. Please find links below; prices are current as of November 10, 2025
o Showerhead- Delta, Kayra, Monitor 14 Series Shower Trim in Chrome- Model#: T14233 o Sink Faucet- Delta, Kayra, Two Handle Widespread Bathroom Faucet in Chrome- Model#:
3533LF-MPU
o Kitchen Faucet- Delta, Coranto, Single Handle Pull-Down Kitchen Faucet in ChromeModel#: 9179-DST o Toilet- Western Pottery- 1.28G Elongated Bowl Easy Height- Model#: 832-T8ULF-HP o Clothes Washer - Samsung - 4.5 Cu. Ft. High-Efficiency Stackable Smart Front Load Washer with Steam and Super Speed Wash - Platinum
o Dish Washer- LG - 24 in. in Stainless Steel Front Control Dishwasher- Model #: LDFN3432T o Labor Cost cited in table 6 are estimates for contractors in the St. Helena area found on https://www.taskrabbit.com
G. CONCLUSION
The proposed project theoretical water usage is 11,963 gallons per day.
The existing theoretical water usage on site is 1,350 gallons per day.
Therefore, the project must save 10,613 gallons per day or pay an in-lieu fee to comply with St. Helena water neutrality policy for development.
The project will pay an in-lieu fee of $133,348, equal to the cost of retrofitting enough residences with low flow fixtures to offset the proposed theoretical water use.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Response to Public Comments from the January 13, 2026 City Council Public Hearing:
Spring Grove Vesting Tentative Map and Water Neutrality In-Lieu Retrofit Fee
Public Comments are grouped by theme and a single response prepared for related comments.
Concern that the project has not been processed in compliance with the St.
Helena Municipal Code.
The development application was submitted on November 22, 2024 and routed for review to Planning, Fire, Building, Public Works, City Arborist, and applicable outside agencies. The applicant was deemed to have submitted a complete application on May 13, 2025 and a subsequent consistency review commenced in compliance with SB 330.
The project underwent multiple rounds of consistency analysis before the project was determined to be consistent with all applicable state and local standards. Comment letters were posted to the project webpage on the City website. City staff have applied the State and Municipal Codes where applicable. If commentors wish to disagree with this assertion, they need to specify which Code they believe to have been violated before Council may consider their claim.
Concern that the Applicant has not satisfied all requirements of the Municipal Code.
Some provisions of the Municipal Code become applicable to the project at Building Permit and Final Inspection stages of the review process. The Public Works Department concurs that there are outstanding issues that will need to be addressed during subsequent phases of the development process. However, the outstanding issues are not prerequisites to Council approval of the Tentative Map or Water Neutrality In-Lieu Retrofit Fee. All outstanding issues will be resolved either before Building Permit issuance or Final Inspection, as appropriate.
For example, during the consideration of a tentative map application, Public Works staff will only review a preliminary stormwater management plan, and more detailed analysis of construction drawings is performed by Public Works staff during the building permit review. Post-construction storm water management remains an outstanding issue, but find there are multiple design options available to the applicant to mitigate the issue.
Staff will ensure that the project incorporates a reasonable solution in the plan prior to approving the Building Permit. As conditioned, resolution of this matter is not needed for Council to approve the Vesting Tentative Map or Water Neutrality In-Lieu Fee Retrofit request.
Site Layout and Irregular Lot
SHMC Section 16.32.050 requires new lots created by subdivisions to meet minimum lot dimensions. SHMC Table 17.16.030 (Development Standards) establishes the Agenda Item #11.1.
standards for residential lots. The project proposes a 2.43-acre (105,851 square feet) lot for development, which exceeds the required minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet.
In addition, the subdivision consolidates three existing parcels to create a 66-foot-wide public frontage, improving site access, and exceeding the required minimum lot width of 45 feet. While the resultant parcel is irregularly shaped, it exceeds the minimum dimensional requirements for lot area and lot width as required by the City Code, is buildable, and provides adequate access.
Fire Access
The project plans, dated November 10, 2025 (Attachment 5 of the January 13 City Council staff report) were reviewed for compliance with applicable state and local Fire codes by the Fire Department. The Vesting Tentative Map proposes a minimum 26- foot-wide Emergency Vehicle Access Easement (28-feet-wide in most places), which meets the minimum 26-foot-wide fire access width standard pursuant to California Fire Code Appendix D Section D105.2. In addition, the Minor Design Review application for the project proposes a 40-foot-tall building height, which requires aerial fire apparatus pursuant to California Fire Code Appendix D Section D105.2. Fire has verified aerial equipment can access the third story windows and turning radii are adequate. Lastly, the project is conditioned to install NFPA13 fire sprinklers in each unit prior to building permit issuance. Per the 2025 California Fire Code, Appendix D, Section D107.1, developments where the number of units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate fire access roads, except that where all units are equipped with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, access from two directions shall not be required.
Therefore, as designed and conditioned, the single means of access from Spring Street fully complies with the 2025 California Fire Code, and a secondary means of access is not required.
Height
Proposed building elevations are not under purview of the City Council and were reviewed and found to be in compliance with all applicable zoning standards as part of the Minor Design Review. The project proposes a building height of 40 feet, which is less than the required maximum building height of 42 feet per SHMC Table
17.16.030(B).
Number of Affordable Units
Pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, SHMC Section 17.30.030, the Project will provide at least 20% affordable units. Per SHMC Section 17.30.030.G.1, for owner-occupied affordable units, at least half of the required affordable units shall be available to households earning less than 100% of annual median income (AMI). The Project proposes a 41-unit, 19% affordable, multifamily development for moderate Agenda Item #11.1.
income households earning 120% or less of AMI, with four units available to households earning less than 100% AMI and four units available to households earning less than 120% AMI. Pursuant to SHMC Section 17.30.030(A), Vesting Tentative Map condition of approval #26 requires the developer to pay the housing in-lieu fee for the remaining
0.2 fractional units of affordable to achieve the 20% minimum requirement of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Please note, the City Council will consider the affordable housing agreement for the project at a future date.
Architecture
Project architecture is not under City Council review and was reviewed and approved with the Minor Design Review. Pursuant to SHMC Section 17.05.080.B.2, new multifamily development consistent with the applicable development and design standards provided in SHMC Section 17.16.040 (objective design standards) are subject to Minor Design Review by the Community Development Director. The Minor Design Review for site plan layout, architecture, parking, and landscaping has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the objective design standards and ministerially approved by the Community Development Director. The administrative Notice of Action is included in Attachment 8 of the January 13 City Council staff report. No appeal was filed and the Minor Design Review approval is final.
Also it is important to note that as part of the last Housing Element cycle, the State required the City to streamline the review of multi-family housing and eliminate the zoning requirement of a discretionary Conditional Use Permit for multi-family housing.
Occupancy of Existing Homes
Some commenters have indicated that the applicant must replace the three existing homes on the property, indicating that those units provide existing affordable housing.
State law requires that if a new housing development requires the demolition of existing residential units, the new development must produce at least as many units as are being demolished. This project meets that requirement, since it will demolish 3 units, but produce 41. State law also requires that any “protected units” that are demolished must be replaced with an equal number of “protected units”. Protected units are units that are either (1) subject to local rent control requirements, (2) are subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance or law restricting rents to levels affordable to low or very low income household (i.e., households earning 80% or 50% of the Napa County area median income, adjusted for household size), or (3) were actually rented to a low or very-low income household within the past 5 years. One of the homes (at 1447) was used by the owners as a weekend home, and has not been rented. Further, the City has not obtained any information indicating that either of the remaining homes has be Agenda Item #11.1.
rented to a low or very low income household within the past five years. Nevertheless, in order to ensure compliance with this requirement, a modification to Vesting Tentative Map condition of approval #25 is included in the Vesting Tentative Map resolution to make clear that the affordable housing agreement must comply with all applicable laws, including those related to demolition of existing housing units. In the event that the City determines that one of the existing units was rented to a low or very low income household, the City will require as part of the Affordable Housing Agreement that one of the affordable housing units included as part of the project be sold or rented to a household at an equivalent income level.
Construction Impacts to Neighbors
Vesting Tentative Map condition of approval #38 limits construction hours to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday to reduce the disturbance to residents in the vicinity. The project would retain 35 existing trees, most of which are mature trees located along the perimeter of the site that would provide screening to adjacent properties. In addition, the project would provide 59 new trees, mostly along the perimeter of the project site to provide enhanced screening in combination with continuous 6-foot-tall wood fencing.
Play Area
Common outdoor recreation spaces are not under review of the City Council and were reviewed for compliance with SHMC Section 17.16.040 as part of the Minor Design Review. The project proposes 18,548 square feet of common open space, which exceeds the 6,150 square foot common open space requirement. Passive and active recreational amenities within the common open space area include walking paths, community seating, a picnic area, and a vineyard trellis with fruiting vines. Per SHMC Section 17.16.040.A.10.f, the play area requirement does not apply to any development that is age-restricted to senior citizens or located within 300 feet of a public park. The project is located less than 300 feet from Mary Fryer Park. Per Vesting Tentative Map condition of approval #13, the project is required to pay all development impact fees, including park impact fees and parkland fees, prior to building permit issuance.
Entry Design
Entry design is not under purview of the City Council and was reviewed for compliance with SHMC Section 17.16.040.C.3 with the Minor Design Review. Each unit contains a separate, primary entry. Per SHMC Section 17.16.040.C.3.b.i, individual ground floor entrances to units within a multifamily development must be visible and directly accessible from the right of way or a shared pathway. This standard is not met for two of the end units in Buildings 1 and 6 where direct pedestrian access is not provided from a walkway, but is accessible from the private street. The City acknowledges strict Agenda Item #11.1.
compliance with this standard would physically preclude development of the project at the densities allowed under State Density Bonus Law and has accepted a Density Bonus waiver requested by the applicant as documented in the Density Bonus Eligibility Letter (Attachment 8 of the January 13, 2026 City Council staff report).
General Plan Consistency
The project implements 2023-2031 Housing Element Site #9. Because the Housing Element is a part of the General Plan, the project is consistent with the General Plan. In addition, while strict compliance with all General Plan policies is not required for development projects, an analysis of consistency with other General Plan policies is included in Attachment 7 of the January 13, 2026 City Council staff report. It should also be noted that the application has been submitted under SB 330, which limits the ability of the City to apply subjective standards to the project. As stated in Chapter 1.6 of the General Plan, the role of the General Plan “sets forth the City’s policies to guide future land use decisions and provides the needed framework to preserve the character and quality of development that the community desires.” Policies that guide development based on character and quality reflecting community desires are commonly subjective in nature.
Concerns that the Project has not demonstrated compliance with the Water Neutrality Policy.
Staff have reviewed the water neutrality calculation and find the most recent version (11/19/2025) to comply with the Policy. The estimated water use, volume to be mitigated and the in-lieu fee to be paid all conform to the Policy guidelines.
The developer has requested use of the in-lieu fee process and has demonstrated that strict compliance with the Policy presents an "unusual hardship". Public Works has reviewed this claim and finds it to be valid for this project. As a result of this finding, the Project has not been required to provide a list of parcels to retrofit, or fixtures lists since these items are not relevant should Council allow payment of an in-lieu fee. Please note that this is not a waiver from these Policy requirements. The Developer will still have to comply with these requirements should Council disallow payment of an in-lieu fee.
Council retains the discretionary right to grant or deny the applicant use of the In-Lieu fee option.
Concerns that the in-lieu fee does not ensure there is adequate water capacity to serve the Project.
The In-Lieu fee is paid by developers when the Council determines that directly offset water use is impractical or poses an unusual hardship. Compliance with the water neutrality policy is separate from an evaluation of existing infrastructure. Developers are subject to separate requirements to prepare calculations showing that they will not Agenda Item #11.1.
exceed the capacity of the service mains to which they will connect. This evaluation is not Citywide nor intended to be. Citywide infrastructure evaluation is performed by the City through periodic studies and development of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). These studies are made available to all residents as a reference tool for planning their projects big and small.
It is important to note that the Bell Canyon Forecast, periodically presented to Council, is not a measure of "safe yield". The Bell Canyon Forecast is a snapshot of short-term water reserves only and not a long-term planning document. The City has separate "safe yield" studies, the latest of which was completed 2024. Staff began referencing the latest Safe Yield study in decision making following its initial presentation to the ATSC at the July, 2024 meeting.
Spring Grove has adequately demonstrated that the project will not negatively impact public health and safety either on or off the property. Post-Construction storm water management will need to be addressed prior to issuance of building permits, but Staff has determined that there are multiple design options available to the applicant to mitigate this outstanding issue. Staff will ensure that the project incorporates a reasonable solution in the plan prior to approving the Building Permit. Resolution of this matter is not needed for Council to approve the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map or the In-Lieu Fee request.
Third-Party review of the Spring Grove water neutrality report.
Public Works is responsible for reviewing water neutrality calculations. The water neutrality calculation is not complex, requiring only basic math skills to prepare and review. Third-Party review of this calculation is not a requirement of the municipal code and would not add benefit to the review process.
In-lieu fee only reflects water use for a single year, and should be collected annually.
The in-lieu fee is not based on water use. It is a fee that may be charged in lieu of providing retrofitted toilets or other fixtures to reduce water use, and as a consequence, the fee amount is based on the cost to the developer of conducting such retrofits, were they able to do so. Given that the fee is structured as an alternative to a one time obligation, the fee also should not be recurring. Actual water usage by Spring Grove residents will be paid through water bills like all other water customers.
Concern that the Project will exacerbate water quality issues the City currently experiences.
Taste, odor and discoloration issues with City water have persisted for over 100 years.
These issues are caused by naturally occurring iron and manganese in the City's water sources. The presence of these metals is independent of water demand. Similarly, issues with HAA5 compounds are the result of the interactions between the chemistry of our water sources and the disinfection process. The presence or absence of HAA5 in our water is independent of water demand. The anticipated water demand of the Spring Agenda Item #11.1.
Grove project has no influence on the chemistry of the City's water sources, the treatment processes, or the formation of HAA5 compounds.
Concern of a connection between wastewater treatment cost and Spring Grove.
The wastewater treatment plant has nearly completed installation of a new treatment process. Part of this new process is the continuous removal of solids from wastewater and weekly disposal. The new process does not represent a reduced level of treatment or limit on discharge volume. The level of treatment is substantially higher and creates water safe for irrigating food crops, in part because of new solids removal process. In addition, the treated water meets the requirements for direct discharge to the Napa River and, if discharged directly (not stored in a pond), does not require disinfection with chlorine. Approval of the Spring Grove project, or any project, has no influence on the treatment process or the need to dispose of solids. Cost of disposal is based on volume and additional volume from the Spring Grove Project will be paid by the new residents via their water bill like all other residents.
Fines paid by the City for wastewater discharge violations.
Fines paid by the City are the result of the old treatment process combined with severe weather events and delays in delivery of the new treatment process. Now that the new treatment process is fully operational, future violations should be significantly reduced or eliminated. The Spring Grove development has no impact on this issue.
Alternative Water Neutrality and In-Lieu Fee calculations.
Ms. Covell has issued multiple comment letters regarding the accuracy and lawfulness of the Water Neutrality and In-lieu Fee calculations prepared by the Spring Grove development team. Ms. Covell has prepared alternative calculations and cited the calculations prepared by other projects to support her comments. Some of Ms. Covell's comments were erroneously based on early Spring Grove submittals which had already been rejected by Staff. These early comments have been superseded by Ms. Covell's comments dated 1/9/2026. Staff have prepared responses to the 1/9/2026 comments only.
1. The Policy relies on an occupancy/bedroom metric for estimating water usage in residential development. This metric allows comparison of the estimated maximum number of people who could reasonably occupy the development.
Ms. Covell’s comments reference a “per home” metric that does not consider the number of people who could live in the home. This metric is not supported by the policy and is less accurate. Public Works has relied on the Policy for evaluating the Spring Grove project and finds that the calculation prepared by Spring Grove meets the requirements of the Policy.
2. The Policy Guideline includes a “typical calculation” table for use by developers. The table is provided as a formatting reference for preparing their calculation. The table also includes the estimated water usage for each Agenda Item #11.1.
standard fixture or appliance. The water usage figures are based on the 2010 LEED standards in effect at the time of the Policy’s adoption. These Policy standards have not been updated. However, they remain mostly consistent with the 2022 California Green Building Standard applicable to the project today. Public Works accepts the Policy Guideline standards without additional documentation.
3. Some developers achieve water neutrality by specifying hyper-efficient appliances that exceed the Policy standards. Public Works allows this method but requires that the developer document the claimed efficiency by providing the specification sheet for the specific appliance. The appliance is then incorporated into the building permit so that the Building Official or Public Works can verify its installation before final inspection. Spring Grove did not use this option and elected to incorporate conventional water efficient fixtures/appliances into the Water Neutrality and In-Lieu Fee calculations for the project. This approach is in strict conformance with the Policy.
4. Ms. Covell asserts that the developer did not use the calculation method required by the Policy. The Developer did use unique formatting, but their methodology adheres to the Policy. Public Works performed its own calculation, which incorporates all decimal values required by the Policy, during review and found that the developer correctly estimated daily water usage for the anticipated 320 residents at the property. The City's independent calculation also established that Ms. Covell's concerns regarding miscalculation, blended averages, or potential "rounding errors" are immaterial.
5. Ms. Covell asserts that the calculation for “kitchen faucet” should be 1.8 gallons per minute. Ms. Covell's value relies on alternative standards. While these alternative standards are acceptable to Public Works, they remain optional. The Policy allows 1.5 gallons per minute for this fixture, so the developer’s calculation is acceptable.
6. Ms. Covell asserts that the water “savings” calculation, prepared for the Hunter Subdivision is a more accurate method for calculating the in-lieu fee.
Public Works disagrees. The Hunter Subdivision calculation omits dishwasher or clothes washer use. The Spring Grove calculation includes these appliances and is the more complete methodology. The Hunter Subdivision also relies on well water as a compliance method and is significantly larger than the Spring Grove project. Any comparison between these two projects is not apples-to-apples.
Agenda Item #11.1.
7. Ms. Covell asserts that the "baseline" (i.e. "water budget") water calculation should use the average number of bedrooms from the 3 (three) original homes. This assertion has no basis in either the Policy or any outside standard applicable to the Policy. The Policy relies on a formula which allows 150 GPD for each existing bedroom. Public Works confirmed, via County tax records, that the 3 (three) original homes have a combined total of 9 bedrooms which equates to a "baseline" water usage of 1,350 GPD. Public Works finds that the "baseline" calculation prepared by Spring Grove conforms to the Policy.
8. Ms. Covell expressed concern that dens/home offices/optional bedrooms had been omitted from the Spring Grove calculations. Public Works had expressed similar concerns over early drafts of the floor plans and the purpose of an additional room located adjacent to the garage of some units.
The plan was revised to clearly identify these rooms and the Water Neutrality calculations updated. Public Works finds that all bedrooms applicable to the Policy have been correctly identified and occupancy correctly calculated.
Concern that the City has not made the findings needed to approve Spring Grove.
At the December 2, 2025 regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted findings and a recommendation for approval to City Council pursuant to SHMC Section 16.16.060 (Attachment 3 of the January 13 City Council staff report).
SHMC Section 16.16.080(A) includes the findings that must be made by City Council to approve a Tentative Map. While there are a number of concerns that have been expressed by the community, a Tentative Map may only be denied if it is found to be inconsistent with the findings of SHMC Section 16.16.080(A) of the St Helena Municipal Code. Applicable findings are included in the January 13, 2025 City Council staff report and the draft City Council resolution for the Vesting Tentative Map (Attachment 2 of the January 13 City Council staff report).
Other Comments from Councilmembers at January 13 CC Hearing What will prevent on-street parking on private streets? Agenda Item #11.1.
The project proposes 93 off-street parking spaces, which exceeds the 77 parking space minimum requirement per SHMC Table 17.26.040(A). No on-street parking is proposed within the private streets. The project includes a combination of two-car garages for each unit and 11 perpendicular parking stalls. Per Vesting Tentative Map condition of approval #19, the project must include provide wayfinding signs along the project’s internal roadway and at the sidewalk connections, and identity a short-term parking area for delivery vehicles. In addition, the frequency of driveway curb cuts will discourage any unauthorized on-street parking. The applicant has confirmed the HOA and CC&R’s will prohibit on-street parking within the development.
Can the City impose a condition of approval that would require partial retrofits, as demanded, and partial payment of the in-lieu fee for the balance of the required offset?
Yes, the City Council and applicant may consider a condition of approval to require some retrofits and a partial payment of the in-lieu retrofit fee to the extent the applicant is able to find existing demand for retrofits within the community. However, after discussing this with the applicant, given the challenges of finding demand (e.g. survey) and the uncertainty of how the City would enforce such a condition, the applicant indicated they would not be amenable to a partial retrofit.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Attachments available until Feb 13, 2026
Outlook
obvious false statements in staff presentation Spring Grove Proposal From Daniel Hale <[email protected]>
Date Wed 1/14/2026 2:39 PM
To Anil Comelo <[email protected]>; Ethan Walsh <[email protected]>; Paul Dohring <[email protected]>; Michelle Deasy <[email protected]>; Aaron Barak <[email protected]>; Christopher Warner <[email protected]>; sue <[email protected]>; Jackie Oneal <[email protected]>; Xinia Gamero <[email protected]>; Public Comment <[email protected]>; Kelso Barnett <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Andreas Booher <[email protected]> Cc [email protected] <[email protected]>; Jesse Duarte <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; McDougall, Paul@HCD <[email protected]>
St Helena Council members, St Helena staff members, Spring Grove Applicant As you are aware, there is a growing and well-documented record identifying areas where staff reporting has misrepresented or omitted material facts in relation to the Spring Grove Proposal. Additional examples emerged during last evening’s meeting. These issues do not serve the project, the City, or the integrity of the process as this proposal moves forward.
Some of these facts may be awkward or inconvenient, but they are nonetheless facts, are part of the record, and remain unresolved. Whether this project proceeds (with or without appeal,) those unresolved conditions persist. Left unaddressed, they function like buried hazards, capable of resurfacing later and causing significant harm.
Last evening, the City came uncomfortably close to compounding this problem. A motion that prematurely queued denial as an option, at that procedural moment, would have created an artificial crisis dynamic that was neither required nor appropriate. Perhaps could have been considered at a “5th meeting”, but had no place in last evenings hearing. It was a straightforward procedural calculation, and I am relieved that Council members Barak and Deasy recognized it. As a result, the motion lost momentum/evaporated and was neither voted upon, nor formally withdrawn.
This incident reflects a broader pattern: factual misrepresentations or omissions, followed by strategic framing that avoids directly addressing or rebutting those facts. While I recognize that the system is under strain, I believe that strain is, in Agenda Item #11.1.
part, self-inflicted, stemming from a reflexive effort to defend or “save face” for the process rather than to fully engage with the substance of the issues before you.
For a project of this scale and consequence, I believe that approach is insufficient.
Below are two additional clear and hazardous misrepresentations from last evening’s staff presentation:
First, the assertion regarding existing housing units is materially inaccurate.
The lot containing 1505 is not a part of Site 9, either before or after the proposal.
Prior to the application, and currently, it furnishes/exists as one housing unit.
Readily obtainable records demonstrate that this unit was rented for extended periods at rates that would qualify it as “established low income housing.” Of course it may surprise many what the metrics that define those categories are, but that information is readily available.
The same is true for the property at 1515 Spring Street, a four-bedroom unit with a documented rental history.
The history of 1447 is more nuanced, as it has been periodically retained and used by members of the Aslanian family (owners of the 3 parcels/homes). That condition has remained consistent throughout the life of this project and since the time of application.
The assertion by staff placed into the record last evening that “all the homes are vacant" is purposefully misleading and inaccurate, and easily refutable.
Click to Download
IMG_7201 2.mov
13 MB
Second, the following statement made during the presentation is demonstrably false:
“Because all the buildings are sited on the HR portion, which comprises 95% of the site, HR development standards apply to the project.”
— Mike Janusek, M Group
Agenda Item #11.1.
Click to Download
IMG_7202 2.mov
17.9 MB
The record and "facts on the ground" directly contradict this claim.
Additionally, staff’s characterization of existing conditions across the three parcels and three homes represents a significant omission of material facts. This framing misleads Council as to what currently exists and how those existing conditions intersect with applicable laws, general Plans, and ordinances. Verification of this history is straightforward and should have been undertaken before presentation.
Last evening, you directed staff to “sift through” the issues raised in Public Comment letters, and set aside those that do not “rise to the top.” However, the record, repeatedly and clearly, demonstrates that staff is not presenting the full factual picture and is, in several instances, engaging in selective framing that omits legally relevant conditions.
Given this pattern, I do not see how it would be correct, appropriate, or sincere to narrow the scope of review rather than refine and clearly direct the process to address all comments and factual challenges raised in the public record.
Thank you for your consideration.
Daniel Hale
Daniel Hale
PO Box 644
Saint Helena, CA 94574
707.227.4322
www.danielmhale.com
danielhale (INSTAGRAM)
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Department: Planning
DATE: January 27, 2026
FROM: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consideration and adoption of a Resolution authorizing: 1) Amendment #1 to St. Helena Contract FY 2024-055 with
Dyett and Bhatia to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report for the Downtown Specific Plan for an additional $98,840 for a total contract amount not to exceed
$598,840; and 2) a budget increase in the amount of
$98,840 using General Fund Reserves.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Staff recommends Council approve the attached
resolution.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
On February 27, 2024, the City Council approved St.
Helena Contract FY2024-055, awarding the Downtown
Specific Plan contract to Dyett and Bhatia.
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
To fund the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report for the Downtown Specific Plan CEQA compliance.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact to the General Fund is $98,840. This will require a budget increase to GL Account 101-45-00- 21-45 using General Fund Reserves.
BACKGROUND:
A Specific Plan is an important planning tool to guide both redevelopment in the downtown study area and propose streetscape improvements/placemaking in the public realm. One of the recommendations of the 2023 Urban Land Institute Technical Assistance Panel ("ULI TAP") report is that the City should prepare a Downtown Specific Plan to help further revitalize the downtown and attract further investment.
Subsequently, the City Council approved $500,000 in funding for a Downtown Specific Plan as part of the FY 2023-2024 budget. The City issued an RFP and selected the consulting firm of Dyett and Bhatia for their exceptional experience preparing Specific Plans, familiarity with St. Helena from their work on the General Plan, having in-house CEQA team, and overall qualifications.
The Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) will set a vision and policy plan for the proposed study area that will be rooted in a comprehensive public engagement strategy with community workshops, joint meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council, and affiliated boards and commissions.
After the project kicked off, a Specific Plan Steering Committee was created to provide feedback throughout the process to staff and consultant team. The plan includes a Agenda Item #12.1.
number of technical studies including a parking study, market study, and traffic study that will help inform developing a preferred plan. Catalytic sites will be identified for future buildout within the study area which may result in future General Plan Amendments. Ultimately, the Specific Plan will act as a zoning overlay with development standards and uses that reflect the community vision. An Implementation Chapter will assess future improvements needed to realize the plan buildout, with a cost and funding strategy. An Existing Conditions report was completed and posted to the project website in August 2024.
DISCUSSION:
The DSP scope of work originally assumed an addendum to the General Plan EIR would be prepared to address the CEQA compliance. An addendum to the General Plan EIR would only suffice for CEQA if the impacts of the DSP were within the impacts addressed in the General Plan EIR. However, upon further evaluation of likely significant impacts of project related traffic generation and future land use changes, there may be new significant impacts as a result of the DSP and it would be prudent to start the EIR process as soon as the preferred land use alternative for the DSP is decided in the months ahead. The scope of work attached to the Amendment 1 to the PSA outlines the tasks to be included as part of the DSP EIR.
A comprehensive CEQA document is vital to the success of the downtown revitalization strategy as it will streamline the approval process for future development within the Specific Plan for those projects that are consistent with the land use assumptions in the DSP.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Not a CEQA project.
GOAL:
Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
Executed STH Contract FY2024-055 - Dyett and Bhatia
Resolution Dyett and Bhatia PSA amendment _1
Amendment 1 STH Contract FY2024-55 Dyett and Bhatia combined Agenda Item #12.1.
3THContractijbl’
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on February 27, 2024 by and between the City of St. Helena, located in the County of Napa, State of California (City), and Dyett and Bhatia (Consultant).
RECITALS:
A. City desires to employ Consultant to fumish professional services in connection with the project described as the Downtown Speci?c Plan.
B. Consultant has represented that Consultant has the necessary expertise, experience, and quali?cations to perform the required duties.
NOW, THEREFORE, in considerationof the mutual premises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the parties agree as follows:
SECTION 1 — BASIC SERVICES
Consultant agrees to perform the servicesset forth in Exhibit A, “Scope of Services” and made part of this Agreement.
SECTION 2 — ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement that are in addition to or outside of those set forth in this Agreement or Exhibit A, “Scope of Services” (the “Services"), unless such additional Services and compensation are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Council or City Manager of the City.
SECTION 3 - TIME FOR COMPLETION
Services”. The parties expressly agree that time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. SECTION 4 — COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT A. Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay consultantthe amount speci?ed in Exhibit A, “Compensation"attached hereto and made a part hereof. Total compensation shall not exceed $500,000 unless additional compensation is approved in accordance with Section 2. B. Consultant shall fumish to City an original invoice for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month. The invoice shall detail charges by the following categories if applicable: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, subconsultant contracts, and miscellaneous expenses. Each original invoice furnished shall include the expenses incurred during the preceding month, the cumulative Agreement amount, Page 1 of 14 [Dyett and Bhnu [Febmury .20 4] 0 Agenda Item #12.1.
and the amount remaining on the Agreement. City shall independently review each invoice submitted to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. If no charges or expenses are disputed, the invoice shall be approved, and City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within 30 days of receipt of invoice. If the City disputes any charges or expenses, the City will return the original invoice to Consultant for correction and resubmission. If the City reasonably determines, in its sole judgment, that the invoiced charges and expenses exceed the value of the Services performed to date and that it is probable that the Agreement will not be completed satisfactorily within the contract price, City may retain all or a portion of the invoiced charges and expenses.
Within thirty (30) days of satisfactory completion of the project, City shall pay the retained amount, if any, to Consultant.
C. Payment to the Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
SECTION 5 — STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE
A. Consultant represents that it has the quali?cations, experience and facilities necessary to properly perform the Services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent and professional manner. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all Services describedherein. In meeting its obligations under this Agreement, Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons in the same or similar geographical area engaged in providing Services similarto those requiredof Consultant under this Agreement.
B. In order to induce City to enter into this Agreement, Consultant represents that it is duly organized, existing and in good standing under applicable state law; Consultant is quali?ed to perform all aspects of the Services; Consultant will employ only persons and Subconsultants with all required licenses and certi?cations where applicable to the professional discipline; that Consultant is duly quali?ed to conduct business in the State; that Consultant has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the Services to be performed herein; and that the Agreement does not violate or create a default under any instrument, agreement, order or decreebinding on Consultant.
City may inspect and accept or reject any of Consultant’s work under this Agreement, either during performance or when completed. City shall reject or ?nally accept Consultant’s work within sixty (60) days a?er submitted to City, unless the parties mutually agree to extend such deadline. City shall reject work by a timely written explanation, otherwise Consultant's work shall be deemed to have been accepted. City’s acceptance shall be conclusive as to such work except with respect to latent defects and fraud. Acceptance of any of Consultant’s work by City shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement including, but not limited to, the sectionspertainingto indemnification and insurance.
S
E
C
TI
O
N
—INSURANC 7REQUIRED
E
214of Page
[Dyan and [27,2024]
February
Agenda Item #12.1.
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claimsfor injuriesto persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connectionwith the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees, as indicated:
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Of?ce Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance.
B. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage including operations,products and completed operations, as applicable. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer’sLiability: $1,000,000 per accidentfor bodily injury or disease.
C. Professional Liability Insurance. When Consultant underthis Agreement is duly licensed under California Business and Professions Code as an architect, landscape architect, environmental engineer or other professional engineer, or land surveyor (“design professional"), Consultant shall maintain at least $2,000,000 of professional liability insurance. When Consultant is not a design professional, Consultant shall maintain at least $1,000,000 of professional liability insurance combined single limit for each occurrence, insuring against professional errors and omissionsin the Services performed by Consultant under this Agreement, including, without limitation, claims for negligence, misrepresentation, violation of good faith and fair dealing, and inaccurate advise arising out of, resulting from, or in connection with Services performed by Consultant underthis Agreement.
above, City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the speci?ed minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City. E. Primag Coverage. For anyclaimsrelated to this contract the Consultants insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects to City, its of?cers, of?cials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its of?cers, of?cials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of Consultants insurance and shall not contribute with it. F. Deductiblesand Self-Insured Retentions.Any deductibles or self-insured Page 3 of 14 [Dyelt and Bhatia] [Febmary27,2024
Agenda Item #12.1.
retentionsof $25,000 or greater must be declaredto and approved by the City.
G. Other Insurance Provisions.The commercialgeneral liability and automobileliability policies are to contain, or be endorsedto contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its agent, of?cers, of?cials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insured as respects: liability arising out of work or operations performed by the Consultant or Consultant’s subconsultants; or automobile owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant.
2. For any claims related to Consultant’s conduct while performing the work of this project, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its agents, of?cers, of?cials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its agents, of?cers, of?cials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certi?ed mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
4. Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the additional insured in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid under Subsection (b) of Section 2782 of the Civil Code.
H. Waiver of Subrogation. Consultant’s commercial general liability, automobile liability, workers’ compensation, and employer’s liability policies shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation. The insurance company, in its endorsement, agrees to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its agents, of?cers, of?cials, employees and volunteers for losses paid under the terms of this policy which arises from the work performed by the named insured for the City.
I. The Acceptabilig of Insurers. Insurance isto be placed with insurerswith a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptableto the City.
I. Veri?cation of Coverage. Consultant shall fumish the City with original certi?cates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements to commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certi?ed copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these speci?cations at any time. SECTION 8 — INDEMNIFICATION A. To the fullest extent allowed by law (including without limitation California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), as may be applicable, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its agents, of?cers, of?cials, employees, representatives, and volunteersfrom any and all claims, demands, suits, loss, damages, injury, and/or liability (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therewith, including legal fees and expert witness costs) (collectively, “Liabilities”), incurred by reason of any negligent or otherwise wrongful act or Page 4 of 14 [Dyelt and Bhatia] [Febmnry27,2024]
Agenda Item #12.1.
omission of Consultant, its of?cers, agents, employees, subconsultants, and subcontractors, or any of them, under or in connection with this Agreement; and Consultant agrees at its own cost, expense and risk to defend any and all claims, actions, suits, or other legal proceedings brought or institutedagainst City, its agents, of?cers, officials, employees and volunteers, or any of them, arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to such negligent or otherwise wrong?il act or omission, and to pay and satisfy any resulting judgments.
B. When Consultant under this Agreement is duly licensed under California Business and Professions Code as an architect, landscape architect, professional engineer, or land surveyor (i.e., a “design professional,” pursuant to Civil Code § 2782.8(c)), the provisions of this section regarding Consultant’s duty to defend and indemnify apply only to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant.
C. If any action or proceeding is brought against Indemnitees by reason of any of the matters against which Consultant has agreed to indemnify Indemnitees as provided above, Consultant, upon notice from City, shall defend Indemnitees at Consultant‘s expense by counsel acceptable to City, such acceptance not to be unreasonably withheld. Indemnitees need not have ?rst paid for any of the matters to which Indemnitees are entitled to Indemni?cation in order to be so indemni?ed. The insurance required to be maintained by Consultant shall ensure Consultant’s obligations under this section, but the limits of such insurance shall not limit the liability of Consultant hereunder. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or earlier terminationof this Agreement.
D. The provisions of this section do not apply to claimsto the extent occuning as a result of the City’s sole negligence, active negligence,or willful acts or misconduct.
E. Duty to Cooperate. Each party shall notify the other party immediately in writing of any claim or damage related to activities or Services performed under this Agreement. The parties shall cooperate with each other in the investigation and disposition of all Liabilities arising out of the activities or Services under this Agreement.
F. In the event that Consultant executes any subconsulting agreements in connection with the Services performed under this Agreement, Consultant shall place in all such subconsulting agreements, and cause its subconsultants to agree to, the indemnity and insurance obligations in favor of City and other Indemnitees, as provided herein, in the exact form and SECTION 9
— INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS A. Consultant is and shall at all timesremain a wholly independentcontractor and not an of?cer, employee or agent of City. Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner or to incur an obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expresslyconferred in writing by City. B. The personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Neither City, nor any elected or appointed boards, of?cers, of?cials, employees or agents of City, shall have control Page 5 of 14 [Dyett and Bhana] [Febnmry 2 .2024 Agenda Item #12.1.
over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant‘s of?cers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant’s of?cers, employees or agents are in any manner of?cials, of?cers, employees or agents of City.
C. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant’s of?cers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other bene?ts which may otherwise accrue to City’s employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights.
SECTION 10 — CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND ANTI-FRAUD AND ANTICORRUPTION POLICIES A. Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any of?cer or principal of its ?rm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would con?ict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant‘s performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an of?cer, employee, agent, or subcontractor without the express written consent of the City Manager. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid con?icts with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement.
B. City understands and acknowledges that Consultant is, as of the date of execution of this Agreement, independently involved in the performance of non-related Services for other governmental agencies and private parties. Consultant is aware of any stated position of City relative to such projects. Any future position of City on such projects shall not be considered a con?ict of interest for purposes of this section.
C. Consultant understands and acknowledges City maintains an anti-fraud and anticon'uption policy to protect the City, its operations, and its employees from and against ?nancial risks, operational breaches, and unethical,fraudulent and corrupt activities. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant, its subcontractor(s) / subconsultant(s) and their respective employees providing Services pursuant to the Agreement are (l) in good standing; (2) have not been previously investigated, convicted, or debarred for fraudulent or corrupt activities; (3) will not fraudulent or and to ensure
or corrupt activities. Consultant acknowledges and agrees further that it has a duty to and will report to City any information or incident(s) about possible fraudulent or corrupt activities Consultant may discover, and will cooperate in any fraud or corruption investigation conducted, with respect to Consultant’s service provided pursuant to this Agreement. SECTION 11 — OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS A. All original maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer ?les, ?les and other documents prepared, developed or discovered by Consultant in the course of providing any Services pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by City without the permission of the Consultant. When requested by City, but no later than three years after project Page 6 of 14 [Dyett and Bhntia] [Febmary 27,2024] Agenda Item #12.1.
completion, Consultant shall deliver to City all such original maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer ?les, ?les and other documents.
B. All copyrights, patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property rights associated with any ideas, concepts, techniques, inventions, processes, improvements,developments, works of authorship, or other products developed or created by Consultant during the course of providing Services (collectively the “Work Product”) shall belong exclusively to City. The Work Product shall be considereda “work made for hire" within the meaning of Title 17 of the United States Code. Without reservation, limitation, or condition,Consultant hereby assigns, at the time of creation of the Work Products, without any requirement of further consideration, exclusively and perpetually, any and all right, title, and interest Consultant may have in the Work Product throughout the world, including without limitationany copyrights, patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property rights, all rights of reproduction, all rights to create derivative works, and the right to secure registrations, renewals, reissues, and extensionsthereof.
SECTION 12 — CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION; RELEASE OF
INFORMATION
A. All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be consideredcon?dential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the City Manager, except as may be required by law.
B. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors,shall not, without prior written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney of City, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement.
Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
C. If Consultant, or any of?cer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees, includingattomeys' fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant's conduct.
D. Consultant promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder. City retainsthe right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite such response.
Page of 714
[Dyan and [27.2024]
Fcbnmx
y
Agenda Item #12.1.
SECTION 13 - SUSPENSION OF WORK
City may, at any time, by ten (10) days written notice suspend further performance by Consultant. All suspensions shall extend the time schedule for performance in a mutually satisfactory manner and Consultant shall be paid for Services performed and reimbursable expenses incurredprior to the suspension date.
SECTION 14 — COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
Consultant shall keep itself informed of and comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations and rules in effect during the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall obtain any and all licenses, permits and authorizationsnecessary to perform the Services set forth in this Agreement. Neither City, nor any elected or appointed boards, of?cers, of?cials, employees or agents of City, shall be liable, at law or in equity, as a result of any failure of Consultant to complywith this section.
SECTION 15 — COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS
During the performanceof this contract, Consultant agrees as follows:
A. Equal Employment Opportunig. In connection with the execution of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and gender expression as protected categories speci?cally and expressively in that category, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or national origin. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, promotion, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rate of pay or other forms of compensation; and selectionfor training including apprenticeship.
B. NondiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964. Consultant will comply with all federal regulations relative to nondiscriminationto federally-assisted programs.
C. Solicitations for Subcontractors including Procurement of Materials and Equipment.
In allsolicitations,either by competitive bidding or negotiations, made by Consultant for work to obligations under this Agreement and the regulations relative to nondiscrimination. SECTION 16 — COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE RE UIREMENTS A. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance" projects (“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as de?ned by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such PrevailingWage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, of?cers, employees and agents free and Page 8 of 14 [Dyelt and Bhatia] [February27,2024]
Agenda Item #12.1.
harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subconsultantsto comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices(Labor Code Section 1777.5), certi?ed payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certi?ed payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption speci?ed in Labor Code Section 1771.4.
B. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption speci?ed in LaborCode Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1.
C. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnifyand hold the City, its of?cials, of?cers, employees and agents free and harmlessfrom any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor.
SECTION 17 — AUDIT AND INSPECTION OF RECORDS
A. Records of Consultant’s direct labor costs, payroll costs, and reimbursable expenses from the date of Consultant’s ?nal invoice. B. Consultant shall maintain all documents and records prepared by or fumished to Consultant during the course of performing the Services for at least three (3) years following completion of the Services. Such records include, but are not limited to, correspondence, internal memoranda, technical reports and investigations, calculations, books and accounts, accounting records documenting its work under its Agreement, and invoices, payrolls, records and all other data related to matters covered by this Agreement. C. Consultant shall permit City to audit, examine and make copies, excerpts and transcripts from such records, and the Consultant shall in no event dispose of, destroy, alter, or mutilate said books, records, accounts, and data in any matter whatsoever for three (3) years Page 9 of 14 [Dyett andBhutia] [February27,2024] Agenda Item #12.1.
a?er City makes the ?nal or last payment or within three (3) years after any pending issues betweenCity and Consultant with respect to this Agreement are closed,whichever is later.
I 1— TI FI [Y
A. Consultant agrees that any liability of City arising in connection with this Agreement shall be limited exclusively to the City-entity identified as the “City” under this Contract. Under no circumstance shall any other City-entity be liable to Consultant under any theory, whether in contract, tort, or otherwise, and Consultant waives unconditionally any such claims. Consultant hereby waives and release other City-entites from any liability under this Agreement.
B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in no event shall City be liable, regardless of whether any claim is based on contract or tort, for any special, consequential, indirect or incidental damages, including, but not limited to, lost pro?ts or revenue, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or the Services performed hereunder.
SECTION 19 — COOPERATION BY CITY
All public information, data, reports, records, and maps as are existing and available to City as public records, and which are necessary for carrying out the work as outlined in the Exhibit A, “Scope of Services", shall be furnished to Consultant in every reasonable way to facilitate, without undue delay, the work to be performed under this Agreement.
SECTION 20 — NOTICES
All notices required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered, or sent by facsimile or ?rst class mail, addressed as follows:
To City: City Manager
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
To Consultant: Rajeev Bhatia Dyett and Bhatia 4001 Howe Street Oakland,CA 94611 Notice shall be deemed effective on the date personally delivered or transmitted by facsimile, or, if mailed, three (3) days a?er deposit in the custody of the US. Postal Service. SECTION 21 — TERMINATION
[Dyan and[27,2024]
Fchnmry
Agenda Item #12.1.
:1: r]
A. City may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time by giving ten (10) days written notice of termination to Consultant. If such notice is given, Consultant shall cease immediatelyall work in progress.
B. If either Consultant or City fail to perform any material obligation under this Agreement, then, in addition to any other remedies, either Consultant, or City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice.
C. Upon termination of this Agreement by either Consultant or City, all property belongingto City which is in Consultant’s possession shall be delivered to City. Consultant shall furnish to City a ?nal invoice for work performed and expenses incurredby Consultant,prepared as set forth in this Agreement.
SECTION 22 — ATTORNEYS’ FEES
If litigation or other proceeding is required to enforce or interpret any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation or other proceeding shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attomeys' fees, costs and expenses, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.In addition, any legal fees, costs and expenses incurredto enforce the provisions of this Agreement shall be reimbursedto the prevailing party.
SECTION 23 — ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, including the attached Exhibits, is the entire, complete, ?nal and exclusive expression of the parties with respect to the matters addressed therein and supersedes all other agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, or entered into between Consultant and City prior to the execution of this Agreement. No statements, representations or other agreements, whether oral or written, made by any party which are not embodied herein shall be valid and binding unless in writing duly executed by the parties or their authorized representatives.
SECTION 24 — SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
This Agreement shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators,successors and SECTION 25
- CONTINUITY OF PERSONNEL Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant's staff assigned to perform the Services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant’s staff assigned to perform the Services required underthis Agreement, prior to any such performance. SECTION 26- DEFAULT In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed Page 11 of 14 [Dyett and Bhatia] [February 2 .2024 Agenda Item #12.1.
after the date of default and may terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to Consultant.
SECTION 27 — WAIVER
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision, or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement. Acceptance by City of any work or Services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
SECTION 28 — LAW TO GOVERN',VENUE
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed according to the laws of the State of California. In the event of litigation between the parties, venue in state trial courts shall lie exclusively in the County of Napa. In the event of litigation in a US. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Northem District of California, in San Francisco.
SECTION 29 - SEVERABILITY
If any term, condition or covenant of this Agreement is declared or determined by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and the Agreement shall be read and construed withoutthe invalid, void or unenforceable provision(s).
WE
Consultant’s subconsultants shall agree to be bound to the terms of the Agreement to the extent of their scope of Services, including but not limited to, terms regarding indemnity and dispute resolution, and shall agree that City is deemed an express third party bene?ciary of their subconsultant agreements. Nothing contained in this Agreement, however, shall operate to confer such or similar rights or bene?ts on persons or entities not party to this Agreement.
As betweenthe parties to this Agreement, any applicable statute of limitationsfor action arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to any act or failure to act in connectionwith this Agreement shall commence to run on the date of City’s issuance of the ?nal Certi?cate for Payment, or terminationof this Agreement, whicheveris earlier, except for latentdefects and/or de?ciencies, for which the applicable statute of limitationshall begin to run upon discovery of the defect and/or de?ciency and its cause. SECTION 32 - SPECIAL PROVISIONS
12of14 Page
[Dycll and[27.2024]
February
Agenda Item #12.1.
This Agreement is subject to the followi
ng
spnone. provision
ecs:
ial IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have accepted, made, and executed this Agreement upon the terms, conditions, and pro
visi
ons
above the year stated, day ?rst andbove
written.
Consultant: Cit
y:
By: By‘
Name: Na Anil Comelo
me: Title: Titl City Manager
e:
Approved as to Form:
By:
Name: Ethan Walsh
Title: City Attorney
PIZS
ATIA
1‘
41
[Dycn and [szmnry 27,2024]
Agenda Item #12.1.
14Page ofl4
[Dyzn an
d
[February 27,2024]
Ex
hi
bit
A- of Services
Scop
e
Agenda Item #12.1.
R.
In association
DKS Associates
Economic 8: Pl an
ni n
g
Systems
Bottomley Ass
oci
ates West Yost
Proposa
l
fothe of St. City Helena
r
Submitted by
Urban and Region
al
Pla nne
rs December 21, 2023
Scope and fee amen
ded
Febru 5, 2024
ary
:
30h
,0
ST.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Th
is
intent blank. pleft
ionall a
gy
e
Agenda Item #12.1.
Dyett & Bhat
ia
.5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
DKS Associat
es
..25
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Economic & .................. Systems 25
..................
............
Bottomley D
es
ig
n
................. Planning &27
.................
...............
West Yost ..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
32 2 APPROACH A
N
D
........................ SOF WORK 34
C
......... O
PE
3 SCHED
ULE
... 53
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
4 BUDG
ET
.54
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5 RESUM
ES
..56
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
2.1 P
ro
je
ct
Under ....................... and Approach 34
standi
ng
2.2 S
c
o
p
e
............. Work of 43
.............
.............
.............
.........
1.1 Pr
oj
ec
t
............................ &Team Management
1.2 T
ea
m
Qual ..................
ificat .................. ions
.......
1 ................................ AND EXPERIENCE 4 TA
BL
E
OF
CONSE
N
Agenda Item #12.1.
_l w
u
Th
is
blank. pintenti le?‘
aonally
g
e
Agenda Item #12.1.
December 21, 2023
Mr. Aaron Hecock, AlCP
Senior Planner
City of St. Helena
Submitted electronically
Re: Proposal for Downtown Speci?c Plan
Dear Mr. Hecockand Members of the SelectionPanel:
Located in the heart of one of the world's premier wine growing regions, St. Helena’shistoric downtown is cherished by residentsand draws visitors from around the world.It features a variety ofshoppingand din— ing venues, galleries,and landmark buildingsin a charming.walkable setting. The City is seekingto prepare a Speci?cPlan to strengthen Downtown's identityand its role in the regional food and wine culture, enhance the publicrealm, realize the potential of ?ve catalyticsites and other developmentopportunities.
A critical consideration will be ensuring that new developmentis cohesive and in keepingwith Downtown’sexceptionalcharacter and historic resources, as wellas ?scal balance.
We are especiallyinterested in this assignment because it provides an opportunity to build on our recent work in preparing the City's General Plan, and leverageboth our familiarity with the community and our extensive experience in leading BayArea speci?cplans.Our strengthsinclude:
Bay Area Downtown and Other Speci?c Plan Leadership. Dyett 8r Bhatia is the Bay Area leader in preparing speci?c plans. Within the last four years alone we have completedspeci?c plans for Santa Rosa.Paci?ca, and Pleasanton downtowns; the Sonoma DevelopmentalCenter; Livermore and Union City station areas; and the BayhillDistrict in San Bruno. Theseare all completespeci?cplans, with full 13le, also led by DBrB.We have a portfolioof completedwork that also includes speci?c plansfor small, distinctive downtowns.such as Windsor and Belmont as well as major downtowns such as San Diego,Honolulu, Phoenix, and Portland.
Exceptional St. Helena and North Bay Familiarity. D&B completedthe St. HelenaGeneral Plan and led the Elk on it. We have completednumerous other generaland speci?c plan assignmentsin the North Bay,includingthe City of Napa General Plan last year.
Expertise in Community Engagement. DBrBoffers strong community engagement skills and has built consensus around numerous speci?cplans that have been seen through to adoption and implementation. Forging consensus will be critical to the success of the project, and we propose to use a at project. State-of-the-Art Computer Modeling,Illustration, and Graphics Abilities. We pride ourselveson creating graphicallyrich, illustrative plans,which use both text and diagramsto effectivelycommu- nicate broad visions down to zoning regulations. D8rB offers a highly sophisticatedin-house com- puter mapping and modelingstudio with extensive experience with preparing three-dimensional models and visual simulations. Integrated Planning and Environmental Review. DErBhas led EIRs for more than a dozen speci?c plansin the BayArea, as described in the ?rm quali?cations.Speci?cPlan policiesand environmen- tal impact assessment will be conducted in parallel.As environmental impacts are identi?ed.Plan policieswillbe developedto mitigate these impacts, resultingin a "self-mitigating’Iplan.Having one ?rm responsiblefor managing the Plan and the EIR will also helpensure timelyand on-budgetcom- pletionof the project. As the General Plan EIR authors, we will also be able to conduct the needed environmental review (an HR Addendum or a SupplementalFocused EIR) ef?ciently. 40 0|
Ho CA946” Street. Oakland. we U
rb
an
and Planners Regional
w
w
w
dy
ett an
db
hat
ia. com
Agenda Item #12.1.
Team members and roles shall be as follows:
- Dyett 8t Bhatia will be responsiblefor all aspects of the Speci?c Plan, project management, munity outreach.policydevelopment,and preparation of all ?nal documents. D8rB will also lea d
t
environmental review.
- DKS Associates will serve as the transportation consultants. DKS worked with D&B recentlyo n
t
h
e
City ofNapa GeneralPlan, using the new Napa Solano ActivityBasedTransportation Model, an d
t
h
e
Paci?ca Downtown (SharpPark) Speci?c Plan.
- Economic BrPlanning Systems will conduct a focused market assessment, conduct ?nancial fea sib
ility assessment, and prepare the infrastructure ?nancingstrategy. EPS has worked with DBrBon ?ca.Pleasanton, Santa Rosa.and Windsor downtown plans,and the Napa General Plan. . Bottomley Design + Planning will prepare streetscape and open space plans. Bottomleyhas pared streetscapes for numerous downtowns, including all of the Napa Riverfront and adj ace
nt
downtown streetscapes for the City of Napa. Bottomleyhas worked with DSrBon a dozen sp ec
i?
c
plans,most recentlySonoma DevelopmentalCenter and BayhillSpeci?cplans. - West Yost will lead infrastructure planning and assessment. which they have done for D&B on eral speci?cand generalplans, including recentlyfor the Napa General Plan.
Rajeev Bhatia, AICP, Principal and Project Manager, will manage all aspects of the project and ser ve as
the primary point of contact for the City. He has worked on numerous speci?cplans throughout th e Area and has a proven track record of managing large teams on complexplanning efforts, leading munity outreach processes, and ensuring projects remain on schedule. Andrew Hill.who led the St. ena General Plan and Elk. will serve as Participating Principal.focusedon environmental review. S en
io
r
and Principal-levelstat?will lead the efforts of the various sub-consultant team members. All work be done from our (only)Oakland of?ce.
We offer a commitment to community-based,innovative planning, and a proven track record of t a
k
i
n
g
plans to adoption within speci?edtime frames and budgets.The caliber of our work is evidenced b y
o
u
r
record of adoptedplans and 11 American PlanningAssociation awardsin the last four years alone f o
r
th
e small volume of work from our one of?ce. Our scope of work and cost proposal re?ect our understa nding of the RFP; we would be happyto modify any aspect of our proposal to better meet your needs. Wel forward to renewing our relationshipwith you.
Cordially,
Rajcev Farmer AICP.
DYETTand Regional Urban Planners B
H
A
TI
A
.
rajccv
@
dyettan
dbhalia
com.
cell: 510—899-3301
S
e
n
i
o
r
Skaff Commitment
U
rb
an
and Planners Regional
w
w
w. d
y
et
tan
d
b
P
ro
je
ct
Team
Agenda Item #12.1.
T
hi
s
intenti blank. pleft
onally a
g
e
Agenda Item #12.1.
Team members and rolesshall be as follows:
- Dyett BrBhatia will be responsiblefor all aspects of
the Speci?cPlan.project management. community
outreach.policy development.and preparation of
all ?nal documents. D&B will also lead the environmental review. ensuring seamless integration of the planningand environmental processes.
- DKS Associates will serve as the transportation
consultants. DKS worked with D&B recentlyon the
City of Napa General Plan and the Paci?ca Downtown (Sharp Park) Speci?cPlan. - Economic 8: Planning Systems will conduct a
focused market assessment. conduct ?nancial feasibility assessment. and prepare the infrastructure ?nancingstrategy. EPS has worked with DBrB on Paci?ca.Pleasanton.Santa Rosa.and Windsor
downtown plans.and the Napa General Plan.
. Bottomley Associate
s
wi prepare streetscape
ll and open space pla
ns.
Bo has prepared
tto
ml
ey
streetscapes for num
erous
including dow
ntow
ns.
all of the Napa Riverf
ront
anddjacent downtown
streetscapes for the ofBottomley Napa. has
worked with D8rB on dospeci?c plans. most
zen
recently Sonoma Dev
elop
men
tal
Center and Bayhill
Speci?cplans.
- West Yost will lead planning and
assessment, which the
y
hdone for DSrB onsev- av
e
eral speci?c and gener
al
pincludi for recently
lng
a
n
s
.
the Napa General Plan
.
The organization chart the follow shows page
ing the responsibilitiesof ea
ch
and the key prson- ?r
m
.
nel. All subconsultants toBhatia, Be rep Dyett
ort and all reports and tech
nica
l
anal the bysub-conysis sultants willbe submitte
d
tbeBhatia, &Dy tointeett grated into the project de
li
ve
ra
bl
es
.
Bhatia Dyet Br will
coordinate the format ofand bewill doc
ume
nts.
responsible for the overa
ll
of the cproducts.
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
This approach results in quality and proposals
conclusionsthan having consult all deliver
ants separate products indep
enden
tly. We envision working incwith partne City
lrship staff. The complementa
ry
and knowledg ofstaff
e
QU
AL
Fl ATION
S AND PER
IEN
C
by»: I Bil-Ill
Raim Shaun
Helen Pierson
Dov-Id Hindu
Junkie Sunwoa
Bommloy Dulgn ll
Planning
Bonamlay
Rku Goal
Dynt l: BhuttRalm EMULN
CP WWMM In
d
P
Mun-w
Andnw Hill
Plnr'cipning Pri?aiz
al Swim-mama! Blvis w
L
u
d
1.1 P8: TEAM
MR
AOJ
NE
AC
GT
E
M
E
N
T
T
E
ORG 81MANAGEMENT
ANIZ
ATIO
N
ErinVac:
Dania! Black
Sun Clrnuy
Alex-"d" Hu
g Syllndl Villad
Economic Pla
nni
ng
Symnu.
Jason M
oo
dy Megan G
n
an
y
'
lhsn
spo
mtio
n,
circulation
Access
WutVut
Doug M
oo
rs Ellubath
Pltrldt Jo
h
n
By.“ A El
lt!-
Andruw H
il
l
Klran Cha vez Balm Bha
?a
Dym In S
h
ad
:
Androw
[2|an Kun
ra KIrun Ch
ave
z
am
lshn B
hn
na
ra
l
Juan C
an
a
?
e
Dyan l
l Rnlm
Michae
l
Dy
an
Mark
et
D
em
an
d
&
O
rg
an
iz
ati
on
Chart
By": El I
ud- : ClaS
ra
Co mmEng
unit age
yment
Lan
d
8:
Utba n
G
rap
hi c
&Web Dulgn
Env
iro
nm
ent
al
lnfns u- uctu
n
A
na
lys
is
P
ro
l
e
c
t
Mana
geme
nt
Z
o
ni
Agenda Item #12.1.
and consultants can result in a process that is ef?cient and a Speci?c Plan that is effective City staff will pro vide baseline information and help in coordinating
with typically underrepresentedpopulations, partner
agencies, PlanningCommission.and City Council.as well as maintaining a liaison with property owners and interest groups City staff will need to carefullyreview all work roducts, and provideuni?ed direction to the
consulta t.
1.2 TE l TION
Quali?cationsof all team members follow. Resumes
are inclu ed in Chapter 5.
DYET &
Dyett Br Bhatia o?'ers strong understanding of St.
Helena—helping with ?nalizing the City’s General
Plan and preparing the Elk on it combined with
our exceptional experience in preparing Downtown
Speci?c Plans, including half dozen in the Bay area.
including in the North Bay very recently for Santa
Rosa and previouslyfor Windsor.
Dyett 8r Bhatia is a California corporation based in
Oakland, operating since 1978. Our small size 20
employees—allowsus to be nimble and responsive in
our work, communication, and outreach. We conduct
analysisand developpolicieson the range of planning
topics, from land use and urban design to economic
developmentand sustainability.The professionalservices we offer are focused on planning, design. and outreach:
. Downtown.urban designand speci?cplans . General Plans - Environmental planningand assessment . Developmentcodes and zoning ordinances Geographic Information Systems (615), three- dimensional computer modeling,and visual simu- lation We see policy-making,land use planning. physical design, and implementationas related activities. The diversityof our practice helps us clearlyde?ne issues and identify practical courses of action. We believe that plan-makingis a collaborative effort involvinga diversityof stakeholders, and are committed to active community participation in the planning process. Dyett BrBhatia has won 15 awards from the American PlanningAssociation in the last ?ve years alone for the relativelysmall volume of work produced. 2022 APA Califomla Chapter Award at Excellence
Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area Speci?c
Plan
APA Northern California Section Award of
Excellence: Large Jurisdiction
for Comprehensive Planning (Hard Won Victories)
2021 APA Calllornia Award 0' Merit: Hard-WonVictories Award Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Land Use Plan
Update
2020 APA Comprehensive Plan Award: Large Jurisdiction
Mission Valley Community Plan
APA San Diego Section Award ol Excellence
Mission Valley Community Plan
2018 APA Northern Califomla Section Comprehensive Plan Award of Excellence: Smell Jurisdictlon Belmont General Plan, Village Speci?c Plan, B:
EIR
APA Comprehensive Plan Award oi Excellence:
Smell Jurisdiction
Belmont General Plan, Village Speci?c Plan, &
EIR
APA Celilomla Sacramento Valley Section
Comprehensive Plan Award of Excellence:
Small Jurisdiction
Woodland General Plan
APA Calilomla Northern Section Award of
Merit for Comprehensive Planning
Redwood City El Camino Real Corridor Plan
APA Calllomia inland Empire Section Comprehensive Plan Award of Excellence: Small Jurisdiction
Fledlands General Plan.CAP, and EIR
APA California San Diego Section Award of
Excellence: Best Practices
GrantvllieTrollevStation [Alvarado Creek
Revitalization Study
preparation, bringing expertise in all facets of speci?c plan preparation. DBrBhas prepared plansfor some of the most vibrant and transformed districts in Western US. — from small city downtownsto the most intense urban environments. DBrBprepared the landmark San Diego Downtown Plan and zoning—ledby Principal RajeevBhatia—about 20 years ago (which remain in effect) that have led to transformation of this 1,500- acre area into perhaps California’s ?nest high-inten- sity, livable, live/work district. DSIB has prepared sev- eral dozen downtown and other speci?cplanssince. 5’6
AM
5-
QUALIF CA
BHATIA
S
D
ow
nt ow
n
Speci?c Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.
Examplesof downtown and other Bay Area speci?c
plansin the last four years include (Dyett 8rBhatia was the prime consultant on all of these assignments, and
also led the HR: for all but one project):
- Santa Rosa Downtown Speci?c Plan and EIR
(adopted2020) . Sonoma DevelopmentalCenter (Reuse) Speci?cPlan and EIR (adopted2022) . Paci?ca Sharp Park (Downtown Paci?ca) Speci?c Plan and HR (adopted2023)
- Union City Station District Speci?c Plan (includes
proposal for a new Downtown like center for the
city) (adopted2022)
o Livermore Isabel Neighborhood(Station Area) Speci?c Plan and EIR (adopted2020; amended 2022) - Bayhill Speci?c Plan (San Bruno; includes YouTlibe headquarters and surrounding sites) and HR (adopted 2020)
- Pleasanton Downtown Speci?c Plan and EIR
(adopted2019) . Collins/Serramonte Master Plan, Colma (highly detailed streetscape plans and standards for two
principalstreets/one of main auto rows in the Bay
Area) (adopted2020)
Other work within the last ten years includes:
- Belmont Village(Downtown Belmont) Speci?cPlan
and Elk (2017)
- Honolulu Downtown Neighborhoods TOD Plan
(2017) . Santana Row/Valley Fair Urban Village Plan, San 1056(2017)
- Winchester Boulevard Urban VillagePlan.San José
(2017)
- Rio Vista Downtown Speci?cPlan (Solano County;
- Palo Alto Downtown Phase 1 (2016) - Santa Clara Downtown Concept Plan (2015) - Lake Merritt Station Area (Downtown Oakland) Speci?cPlan and EIR (2014) .
Diridon Station Area (San Jose) Station Area Spe- ci?c Plan (2014) - Windsor (Sonoma County) Downtown/Station Area Speci?cPlan Speci?cPlan and HR (2013) “9
Dyett & Bhatia has unsurpassed national experience
in preparing zoning regulations for downtowns, as well as comprehensive citywide zoning regulations.
DBrBuniquelyhas a group of highlyexperiencedplan- ners dedicated solely to zoning. We have familiarity with form based, design, performance, and Euclidean approachesfor zoning. Our current zoning work involves a broad array of implementation concepts;
pedestrian-friendly and transit-oriented districts;
mixed use development;green building;best practices
for neighborhood design, parking, landscaping and
lighting; and streamlining development review and
implementationprocedures.
- San Diego
- Chicago,IL . Philadelphia.PA . Portland, OR . Abu Dhabi (UAE) - Austin, TX . Berkeley . Porterville
E eview for Speci?c Plans
Dyett & Bhatia has led completeEIRs on about 20 speci?c plans, as well as more than 40 generalplans.Concurrent EIR/planwork bythe same ?rm helpsto design “self-mitigating"plansthat are easier to implement.
Design Standards and Guidelines
Dyett 8r Bhatia has prepared numerous citywideand
area-speci?cdesignstandards and guidelines.Current
North Baywork includes residential/mixed-usedesign
standards in concert with Housing Elements for Ross,
for cities, and is this currently for Carson and Oceanside. Recent com- pletedwork includes City of Santa Barbara zoning code update (including for Downtown), Carmel, and Mon- terey. DSrB also recentlyprepared interim zoning reg- ulations for Napa, following adoption of the General Plan last year.
Examp
le
Downtown Co Zning Regulalions
mp
let
ed
(in add
/
tro
n
tocompleted zoning asfspeci?c part
plans)
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
CITY OF ST. FOR HELENA
Down
town
Zoni
nv
ir
o
nm
en
ta
R
Agenda Item #12.1.
Dyett & Bhatia has prepared general plans for over 60
California cities.includingin the North Bayfor Napa
(adopted 2022), St. Helena, Santa Rosa, Petaluma.and
Rohnert Park, as well as 151115on all of these assignments. Current work includes general plans for Oakland.Sacramento, Fair?eld.and Monterey among others. ilities, and
.DSKBalso
-D) models
y angle,or
- County of Marin . City of Monterey . City of Moreno Val ley - City of Napa . City of Oakland
- City of Oceanside
- City of Paci?ca
- City of Richmond . Town of Ross
- City of Sacramento
- City of San Diego
- City of San Pablo
- County of Sonoma
- City of Turlock
- City of Woodside . San DiegoAssociat
ion
of Gove
rnme
nts All of these are also cu
rren
t
client wth the exception
s, of City ofNapa and C
ou
nt
y
of work for whom Sonom
a. was completedwithin last has D&B been not year.
a sub-consultant to an
y
?r onver ayssignment
m the past 12 months.
The followingpagesin
cl u
d
e
of pro?l recentpresen
es tative projects.
Dyett 8KBhati
a
GIS leading capab
has several ful
l
tiGIS sraff onspecialists
expertise in pr
ep
ar
in
g
(3threedimensi
onal
of urban areas, beviewed from can an viewed in a w
al
kth
ro
u
g
h
mode or byfly
LIST CLDOING BUSINESS
IE
N
TS
WITH&BHATIA INTHE PAST 12
MON
THS
City of Belvedere
City of Carson
City of Chino
Town of Fairfax
City of Fair?cld
City and County of
City of Los Angcles
GIS Thre Computer
eDim
ensi
onal
Mod
eling
8: Visual Simulation
D
ow
nt ow
n
San Diego Plan
G
e
n
er
al
Plans
D
ow
nt ow
n
Speci?c Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.
The Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area Spe
ci?c
Plan (DSASP) the is
blueprint for development and preservation iareat th 7zo -acr
e
heart of the city. Originally adopted in2007, a k
e
y
of the DSASP
b
je
ct
i
v
e
is to increase the number of residents and e
m
pl
o
y
ee
s
withinalking
distance of the SMART station; however, 1
2 yafterdoption,
e
a
r
s
only 100 housing units had been constructeddof inspite
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
a booming Bay Area economy. Dyett & Bhat
ia
leacompreh
densive update to the Plan focused on removing b
ar
ri
er
s
todevelopm
ent, improving connectivity and walkability,foster
ing
eco and retail
no
mic vitality, and helping realize Downtown’s full p
ot
e
nt
ia
l.
Develop with
ed extensive community engagement, the Plan strategies
to promote high-density, transit oriented mi
xe
d
and use residential
development as well as to facilitate constructi
on
of urban parks and
gathering places, activate the creekside mult
i-use
trailshat traverse
the area, and optimize the use of Cityowned
park D&B also
ing. prepare a Subsequent EIRfor the project, whi
ch
inathoughtful
vo
lve
d
approach to historic preservation.
Sant
a
RDownto Station Specific Area
oswn
a
PlanElk
APA California Awar
d
of
Excellence: Hard W
on Victories
APA Northern Califo
rnia Section Award of E
xc
el
-
lence for Comprehen
siva Planning Large
Jurisdiction
AFI'ER
~"~‘ L.-
-u
SANTA
CALIF
ORNIA ADOPT
ED
202
0 2' Nv
nL _. k‘ m.«\..\:
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
FOR OF STCITV HELENA
D
Y
E
T
T
&BHATIA Ur
ban
P|anners and Regianal
nun DOW
BEFO
RE
Agenda Item #12.1.
\ m
u
.1;
it...”~:
oma County, with a downtown
a Marin RailTransit (SMART) Stat
ion.
The
h a cohesive transit-oriented co
m
mu
nit
y
region and set the framework for nex
t ent, with an expanded core—reorienting with a "Town Green Loop" strateg y—
and
d amenities, which willserve as a
extensive community outreach process, i
survey; and prepared the Speci?c P
l
a
n
and
t Report. The Plan includes guiding princi
ples
that
on forthe area, goals and policiesfor each as
ndards/zoning regulations and design g
ui
d
el
in
es
also includes an implementation progra
m,
wit
h sibilities.
w—mnu‘m Wren-u
Windsor is a small town in Son
adjacent to the planned Sonom
Speci?c Plan seeks to establis
with linksto the town and the
era of Downtown's developm
it around the Town Green
a broader array of uses an
draw.
Dyett &Bhatia led an
a community-wide
ell development sta or development. It imelines and respon Win
dsor
Stati Area Plan/Downtown Specific
on Plan EIR
vn—W | low: mam-.m— Int-and Wm m- an: m
V—ub-Iu mm
[mu Wyn—mum" m
min-nun mun-«m. Damn-um mun-z...” m—uuvIu-n OMmu...
I \
AFA Calif
ornia
Chapt er Award of Compr e- hensive P
lan
n
in
g
Small
Jurisdlcnon(
20 14)
WIN
DSO
R,
CALIF
ORNIA
ADO
PTE
D
2013 D
Y
E
T
T
&BHATIA
D
ow
nt ow
n
Specific Plan
U
rb
an
and Plannurs Regional
"mun —-
:—:.—.:-_-:r--
w.-—-. he...“
hum-
.ET: #5
Agenda Item #12.1.
n.
um.» um. um.
m-mwm—m-n-x
mud-um
Wyn...“ mum-7mm
~m
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
FOR CITY OF ST. HELENA
D
Y
E
T
T
8xBHATIA
Wno muse wu‘. wx um“ mu
nm
Ur
ban
and Planner: Regional
Agenda Item #12.1.
Dyett & Bhatia led a Speci?c Plan for reimaging the s
h
u
t
t
e
r
e
d
945-acre
former Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC) in the of Sonoma Valley,with a 180-acre core campus surrounding by of acres of some of most picturesque and resourcevaluable
opspace in
en Sonoma County. The state's ?rst and largest dev
elop
men
tal
center
and the valley's largest employer in its heyday, the was in2018 closed by the State of California, which owns the ent
ire
pro
pert
y. The site contains 180 buildings, including some on th e
Register,
almost all in severe disrepair or unsuitable for co
nt
em
po
rar
y
uses.
The Speci?c Plan, adopted in December 2022, e
n
vi
si
o
n
s
vibrant a
community of750homes and goojobs in a walkabl
e
with new
and adaptively reused buildings, enhanced open and creek setbacks, and vibrant community gathering spaces.
The Plan generated extensive community interest, comm
unity meeting attendances in the hundreds, and nearl
y
of 1, pages
0 0
0+
comments on the Draft EIR alone. Dyett & Bhati
a
leprepar
dation of all documents, including the Plan and the EIR, a n
d
cothe
nd
uct
ed
community outreach.
Sono
ma
(Reuse) De Center
vel
op
me
ntal
Spec
ific
Pla and Elk
n
u
.
”5...
K1
.,
‘1'
|
'1 f‘il
IA=‘(_
l_’
I.
«I
o
«'4‘
r—J—‘..
.
l'h’l Ti)
I :l
2H
.1
SONO
MA
CO
UN
TY,
CALIF
ORNIA ADOPT
ED
202
2 Speci?c Plan
lan
d
Agenda Item #12.1.
I
L
L
U
;
REND 0ATl RINGSOF SI V.LOP LDENT CENARIOSATFUIJLB LDOUTO THESDC CIFICPLAN V
(.Aa‘e'?._m
l?llll
3 I
“
a
\. In
f“
Agenda Item #12.1.
Dyett &Bhatia led the ?rst comprehensive upd
ate
of Paci?c General
a’s Plan and Local Coastal Program in nearly 30 and developed new Speci?c Plan for the Sharp Park neighbor
hood,
which Paci?ca’s is
downtown, concurrently with the General Pla
n. The Sharp Park Speci?c Plan built upon tsigni?cant area’s opportunity for mixed-use buildings, new hou
sing
and higher intensity
development to help the city address issues hoaffordabilit usi y
ng
and create a center of gravity for the broader commu and nity visitors. The Speci?c Plan addresses issues todevelopme nt scale, intensity, and character; outlines stre
etsc
ape
improve
ments; and includes new development standards. plan aso includes a comprehensive implementation program aninfrastruct
ure ?nancing strategy.
D&B also led a combined EIRon the Gener
al
Pl andark Sharp
an Speci?c Plan; both plans were adopted unanim
ously
bythe Cityouncil
in 2022.
Paci
fica
(Downtown ShParkcifica)
arp Spec
ific
Pla and EIR
n
PACI
FICA
,
CALI
FOR
NIA
ADO
PTE
D
2023
r,"
g
Sharp Park
Speci?c Pl
D
Y
E
T
T
8: BHATIA
mmmd wmsmm
m
WA" wSa-mknuzAn
D
aw
nt nw
n
P|an Speci?c
U
rb
an
and Regional Planners
rumAw
Agenda Item #12.1.
mum-um;-
Wynn
m
The Union City Station District Speci?c Plan is designed to tr a
n
sf
o
r
m
a
470-acre area around the Union City BARTStation by conv ertin
g
two
large existing shopping centers into what may ultimately a new downtown for the city, and transition several hun dred
acre
s of outdated industrial uses and vacant land into a hig hint
ens
ity
employment hub, fostering life science and innovation uses.
The Speci?c Plan, which was adopted in October 2022, fost ers
alarge
mixed-use districtwith uniquesub-districts, complemented b y
e
n
g
a
g
i
n
g
and attractive public spaces, with multiple new streets and p e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
biking connection to enhance connectivity walkability, and a c
c
e
s
s
.
The
plan envisions 5,600 homes (4,000 of which would be new) 18, 200 jobs upon implementation. Dyett & Bhatia wrote both the S p
ec
i?
c
Plan
and the EIRfor the project, aided by a team of subconsultants. In a separate but related project, Dyett &Bhatia worked succ essf
ully
on
behalf of the City with architects and owners of an approxim ately
1,000
housing unit proposal in the station area being pursued as tsp eci
?c
plan was underway, and helped re~imagine it to enhance
orchestrate densities to capitalize on BARTaccess, and foster public realm and integration with the broader Station Distric t.
U
ni
o
n
Cit Station District Plan Specific and EIR
y
My...
Haw—«c... mmmm Mama—4....
”9......“ monk—mu,
Kano-«u.
UNION
CALIF
ORNIA ADOPT
ED
202
2 H._u.—-
'32? D
Y
E
T
T
bkBHATIA U
rb
an
andal Planner: Reg
'\O/‘
...—..
.._.¢ E:
Agenda Item #12.1.
a
Dyett &Bhatia led a Speci?c Plan for reimaging the s
h
u
t
t
e
r
e
d
94s-acre
former Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC) in the of Sonoma Valley, with a 1Bo-acre core campus surrounding by of acres of some of most picturesque and resourcevaluable
opspace in
en Sonoma County. The state’s ?rst and largest dev
elop
men
tal
center
and the valley's largest employer in its heyday, the was 2018 in closed by the State of California, which owns the ent
ire
pro
per
ty. The site contains 180 buildings, including some on th e
Register,
almost all in severe disrepair or unsuitable for co
nt
em
po
ra
ry
uses.
The Speci?c Plan, adopted in December 2022, e
n
vi
si
o
n
s
vibrant a
community of 750 homes and goojobs in a walkabl
e
swith new
and adaptively reused buildings, enhanced open and creek setbacks, and vibrant community gathering spaces.
The Plan generated extensive community interest, comm
unity meeting attendances in the hundreds, and nearl
y
pages of 1,
0 0
0+
comments on the Draft EIRalone. Dyett & Bhati
a
leprepar
dation of all documents, including the Plan and the EIR, acon the duc
ted
community outreach.
Live
rmor
e
(Station Isabel Neighborho
od Area)Plan and Elk
SONOMA
CALIFOR
NIA ADOPTED
AMENDE
D
=
=a
:
.
D
ow
nt ow
n
Spaci?: Plan
II' P‘ L—a“
II
a
E
xi
st
in
Agenda Item #12.1.
Dyett & Bhatia led a Speci?c Plan for reimaging the 945-acre former Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC) in th
e
hof Sonoma
e
a
rt
Valley, with a 180-acre core campus surrounding byof acres of some of most picturesque and resourcevaluable
ope inspace
n Sonoma County. The state's ?rst and largest develo
pment
al
and center
the valley's largest employer in its heyday, the center closed 2018 in by the State of California, which owns the entire pro
pert
y. The site contains 180 buildings, includingsome on t
h
e
NRegister,
at
ur
al
almost all in severe disrepair or unsuitable for c
o
n
t
e
uses.
The Speci?c Plan, adopted in December 2022, e
n
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
avibrant
community of 750 homes and goojobs in a walkabl
e
with snew
et
ti
n
g,
and adaptively reused buildings, enhanced open and creek setbacks, and vibrant community gathering spaces.
The Plan generated extensive community interest
, wcommu
itnity
h
meeting attendances in the hundreds, and nearl
y
pages of 1,
00 0+
comments on the Draft EIR alone. Dyett & Bha
tia
led prepara
tion of all documents, including the Plan and the EIR, con the duct
ed
community outreach.
Pl
ea
sa
nt
on
Downtow Specific Plan and Elk
n
mun mummmu mmmw
iii?
sou
Plemnlun Dmtm Spedl'l: PIIn
=2“
‘l"-'
', '1.qu I
[I:Apmm
wmv
PLEAS
ANTO CALIF
N, ORNIA ADOPT
ED
201
9 ‘l
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
FOR COF TV
Land Plan
Existi
ng
mum
Agenda Item #12.1.
n
Dyett & Bhatia prepared an update of thePlan, General a Speci?c Plan for the Belmont VillagePriorit
y
(FDA), Area
a combined program EIRon the two docume
nts,
well asZoning Cde
amendments to implement the General Pla
n
athe Speci?c Plan.
n
d The General Plan focuses on land use an
d
mimproveme
onts,
bi
li
ty
and in?ll possibilities. Belmont Village,loca
ted
the heart of incity
at the intersection of Ralston Avenue and Real, Crepresents a Belmont's primary opportunity for revitaliz
ation
and of creation true
town center. Addressing urban design, st
r
e
et
s
c
a
p
e
improveme
nts, and multimodal access and connectivity to
tCaltra and station
inh
e
nearby businesses and neighborhoods a
r
e
thobjectives primar
ye of the Speci?c Plan. The Speci?c Plan i acomprehen
sive implementation program, new developm
ent
sta and design
nda
rds
guidelines, and an infrastructure ?nancing
BellmmVillageSpeci?c?an PrtlhulmryDullheknrd ?rmhlbn Ban 9K
Inn-mm
Bel
mon
t
(Downtown Belmont) Vill
age Spec
ific
Pla and Elk
n
BEL
MON
T,
CALIF
ORNI
A
ADO
PTE
D
201']
an
nt ow
n
Spcnl?c Plan
Ur
ban
and Regional Planners
Agenda Item #12.1.
Dyett & Bhatia prepared two neighborhood station area plans encompassing six station areas of Honolulu's new urban rail system— at $7 billion, one of the largest urban rail system currently under construction in the western U.S. Dyett & Bhatia led all aspects of the assignment, including all planning, urban design, and community outreach, supported by a team of local subconsultants. The two plans are:
Downtown Neighborhood TOD Plan. The Downtown Plan
encompasses three stations—Downtown, which serves the ?nancial district, with the highest intensities in Honolulu; Chinatown, which is on the National Register of Historic Places; and lwilei which the Neighborhood TOD Plan envisions as new high-rise mixeduse district, resulting from transforming older industrial and commercial uses. Promoting walkability, enhancing transit access, and developing of a new waterfront promenade are additional features of the Plan.
Kalihi Neighborhood TOD Plan. The three Kalihi stations are adjacent to Downtown, and represent very different opportunities.
The Plan proposes complete transformation of the Kapalama station from big-box stores and industrial uses to a walkable highrise district adjacent to Downtown, while Kalihiand Middle Street station areas are outlined for conservation with selective reuse, and transformation of the Kapalama canal into an active waterfront.
Community engagement included numerous workshops, as well as a adoped in Summer/Fall 2017.
T H
on
ol
ul
u
Neighborhoods Downto Plan TOD
wn
HON
OLU
LU,
HAWAII
ADO
PTE
D
2017
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
FOR CITY OF STHELENA
District
K
ali
hi
seg me nt
Agenda Item #12.1.
1'0an
HEM-Id mun—w...“
nu .
on
m
(-
\*
1V7 $‘E’v;
In" x
Downmw
n
SpPlan
eci
?c
w
Ex“
.3
Agenda Item #12.1.
Santana Row represents perhaps the Bay Area's largest successfu example of a built-from-scratch high-intensity pedestrian-oriented mixed-use district. It has emerged as San José's "second downtown”, a hugely popular retail and dining destination, and a residential district.
Valley Fair, across Winchester Boulevard from Santana Row, is the largest mall in Silicon Valley.
The Santana Row/Valley Fair Urban Village Plan, led by Dyett & Bhatia for the City of San Jose', provides the framework for the next era of development of this pivotal district. The Urban Village Plan builds on the energy of Santana Row to revitalize and enhance connections to surrounding areas, outlines the framework for mid- and high-intensity new development, with building heights reaching 15 to 20 stories, and fosters a dynamic urban environment that embraces the creative workforce and urban living.Development willbe supported by a future Bus Rapid Transit line, as well as new mid-block paseos and urban plazas.
The planning process was supported by community outreach that included two large community workshops and an online interactive map—basedcommunity survey.
5 1"
w. ?“ =3
.
I]
Sant
ana
Row Fair Plan, Urban Villge
/
Vall
ey
San
w!
._.
PROPOSAL FO
R
SI cOF HELENA
n
'v SAN JOSEC
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
DOPTED 20
17 ' mum. mum- .....
.
.
”Wt—aw“
ii
a..."
.m. m- m. .- "a...
Agenda Item #12.1.
zv
San José's General Plan envisions growth clustered "urban in? ll villages”, transforming these strategically identi?ed are as
vibrant, int
o higher density, mixed-use districts that promote transit , wand
al
ki
n
g,
bicycling.
Winchester Boulevard is a major north-south vehicu
lar
con
nect
ion
that links key destinations in Campbell, San José, an
d
SaClara.
nt
a
Centered along a 1.4-milesegment of the boulevard, t Plan M ste
r
for this Urban Village, being led by Dyett & Bhatia for City of San José, seeks to revitalize this key corridor with nodes o f
h
i
g
h
-
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
development, and strategic lower-scaled in?ll develop
ment
betwe
en the nodes. Avariety of outdoor plazas, public art, and p a
r
k
s
integ
rated throughout. Building heights and massing are careful ly
feto
at
he
re
d
minimize impacts on adjacent residential uses.
Winchester Boulevard itself isre-envisioned as a memor
able
boul
evar
d,
with commercial nodes serving surrounding neighb
orhood
s,
while
maintaining its current traf?c travel lanes and capacit y,
parkin
g/ vehicular lane switch—San José’s ?rst such con?gur
ation—
at
peak
hours, enabling provision of new protected cycle tr
a
c
k
s
,
and rain
gardens for water ?ltering.
in
ch
est
er
Boulev Urban Villge Master
ard Plan
Streemape Elements
IIsumamMdrmd Anman m. w ll‘ min.
2: Mack/nun mm um um.mm;
1]mm mm: I'd Urdu" mm:w m :1me mm: A»
'ednxnlnaknlrd mm my;
5) mm m
byPM um um
7) MI" mm puma a mun mm cum
SAN CALI
FORN
IA
ADO
PTED
2013
my”
I»
i 3:
\
D
Y
E
T
T
&BHATIA
D
ow
nt ow
n
Spaci?n Plan
U
rb
an
and Raglonal Planners
Agenda Item #12.1.
A map-based online survey prompted respondents to Interact with draft land use and height maps, providing example images to aid in visualizing the proposed changes.
M“
i urwnon M
unwell
‘5’”: Case Study Site
km
mu!
DEE
%.§£g¢§a§°?§
3 3,2,. 5
Dog ""sz
i
u
I”
1 won" m
WWI-Manhunt: manna-um
WM
kM WM lam-um... WWW 53
9-0 WWmum-aura:
"
,E
M WWW mums:-s..- g
tam-mum‘- EI
ram-«mm MMWWil-m wanna,- Anal-mum hummus-awning WWI-my
I ——-—
._ L____....—
____
I -..-~__\
\
__________
‘7 __' :
’
l I.-__..___ .. I
I l I ,’
.' I
r~-_| ,.
:
I ‘ r--~ "
'
:
I ‘I I.
'
‘. a
/ I: "
(MMVIH .
, = ; ; :1&
l‘
I
\ L-____—_ D-
_.—-..__..I
‘
' l
' pP \ "
II
\‘ I
I 1' x. I I K I
l
, (1“qu
I
I
V////4
¢.
f 0 %
-l—-—n— .
1 l
I
l
:
I
l
I_
g...— ~.
...
.-.
..~
5Sel ma! m
\\\
mi
ni
n
an- p
u
p.
Agenda Item #12.1.
mm mum
Napa is one of Northern California'ssignature cities, at the cultural and economic heart of the wine country. It is strategically located along the Napa River and set among one of California's most highly-valued agricultural and tourist regions, yet within easy reach of the greater metropolitan BayArea. The city is home to established neighborhoods, a riverfront downtown that is a regional draw in its own right, and existing and expanding economic drivers, both related to the wine industry and otherwise.
The General Plan, adopted October 2022, maintains growth within the existing Rural Urban Limit, and promotes corridor revitalization, continued downtown development, riverfront orientation and open space development, and sustainable development patterns. a n‘unu
—— mwuunlmmna v,
'- 1":
/ ‘/.. \
1|
'1': In" I I I
\
" \ ..,_‘__ z: .
.. \ \, ~‘-
.‘__. \. A}; I ,_ a , , -
”‘ “:—l \
'7’ l‘ -- ‘ ?bere
, Pg.— /.,. .3 4...! 3.3L . ’
\
° "a. ~sr ~.:- 1- J
r: ..__
/
“I; 1
..__. ,i
i lrm.
'
I A
\
._: l Jua‘ —- — =-
3 l l ll-an may... - .
/
\-
I 1 ,
p-i-y— -—
—-
m...“— ...... l ......
a.... —..__. _—~.
._...
r.—..
._._
.... —
_. —
:2sz .7
:‘_
_“
:
“*m—‘i—FL“
.m.~_—._~_.- u...
‘T.. —.. _.._
....
no.‘ u...“- nuaa-s-A—‘hw
._........... _.
.,._
_.
-. —...‘.~._.-__. __-.u
.........
.._
.__._.._.._.-
-.-.¢——.._........ ‘__.~_~
. h..................
H ”a:mum"!
N
a
p
a
Plan Gen and Elk
eral
or NAPA GENE
RAL
_......._. .—
-._...-... ....-.... ........ ............ __-.-.—
._._... _w..._ .........—...__ ..__
-._. ..._.
..._
NAP
A,
C
A
LI
F
O
R
N
I
A
ADO
PTE
D
202
D
aw
nt ow
n
Speci?c Plan
Tmnc Corridor Street as
—Du(!
J. uAgenda Item #12.1.
mum-mm
IIIIUE ll DUI
Located in the heart of Napa Val
ley,
Helen one St. isof the Bay Area's
a most picturesque small towns, apopul of and 6,200 aland ation area of about ?ve square miles. Bhatia &assisted the with City the completion of a targeted up
da
te
tohe Plan, General focused on
incorporating policies to addres
s
nState th have requirements
e
w
come into force since the plan last updated and extending the horizon year of the plan. Issues theoinclude effort growth management, economic develop
ment,
histori resource preservation,
c public safety, and agricultural p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
The also effrt included
preparation of an ElRand analysi
s
sen environment resources
siti al
ve
and capacity constraints in areas the Iimitwhere City municipal services are provided.
Fin-IL!
luau-.91.”...
\
—;
\
‘1
\
/QI 4' C.‘ \ \/
\‘
\ x
/ , I,
\\
\
.—- ‘\
x
/
~\
/ § \<\
\
.§ _
.. ....=..........._ W w... a”... u... MM...— mu.“ _ ...... a... Mum Datama— 9"-
Ivy—um“
a... : ~>—.. n
0-min- u—ubm D-
..._4...._..
m\(\
Chm--
St
.
Plan General and EIR
ST. CALIFO
RNIA AD
OPT
ED
2019
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
FOR CITY STOF HELENA kh
an.
..“
my”... M...
Agenda Item #12.1.
15 DKS Associates provides specialized transportation
planning. design, and engineering services to public agencies across the country. Firmwide, our staff includes 150 professionalswith of?ces in Oakland,
Sacramento, and Anaheim, CA: Portland and Salem,
OR; Seattle, WA; and Austin, TX. Our professional
staff members provide expert services in multimodal
transportation analysis, planning, and engineering;
intelligenttransportation systems; corridor and intersection safety, pedestrian and bicycle planning and design,and transit planningand design.
DKS has led or supportednumerous long-rangetransportation planning studies including county level transportation plans, corridor studies, and mobility
elements of local comprehensive plans. We bring to
these studies our full spectrum ofservices which range
from publicoutreach through travel demand forecast—
ing and traffic simulation to GIS and graphicdesign.
DKSstaff are familiar with most of the travel demand
models maintained by county transportation agencies
in the Bay Area and Sacramento regions, including
the Napa Solano ActivityBased travel demand Model
(Napa SolanoABM). DKS staff have applied the Napa
Solano ABM for several projects including the most
recent Napa General Plan update.
- City of Napa General Plan Update, Napa, CA.
DKS analyzedthe existing and future transporta
tion network and needs in support of an update to
the Transportation Element of the City’sGeneral
Plan. DKS appliedCity’slocal travel demand model
to assess traffic LOS effects and the Napa Solano
Activity Based Model to assess VMT. DKS prepared
a Transportation Impact Study that was incorpo
rated into the environmental document (EIR) for
Park Speci?c Plan, Paci?ca, CA. The generalplan update for Paci?ca took placein parallel with a Spe ci?c Plan for their downtown Sharp Park area. The analysis involved multimodal demand analysis LOS calculation for roadwaysegments and intersec tions within the city, parking occupancy, and the creation of maps in GISto visualize the analysis - Dixon Streets Master Plan, Dixon, CA. This study for the City of Dixon assessed long term roadway capacity needs based on the City 5 most recent Gen eral Plan update.DKSanalyzed roadwaycross sec tion as wellas intersection operational performance
under generalPlan buildout conditions.In addition,
DKS recommended changesto the City's engineering designstandards regardingservice volumes. - Contra Costa County Transportation Action
Plan Updates, CA. The DKS role for these studies
encompassedtravel demand model applicationand
performancemetric development.The performance
metrics used in this round of Action Plan updates
have been expanded to address safety, equity, and
sustainability,in addition to the more traditional
roadwayand intersection level of service metrics.
For this project, DKS has prepared a set of land use
inputs correspondingto MTC’sPlan BayArea 2050
and a set of baseline 2050 model outputs. These outputs have been used to forecast metrics, including VMT per service population,greenhouse gas emis~
sions, intersection delay, and peak period travel
times and speeds. . San Leandro Parking Analysis, San Leandro, CA.
For a private online grocery deliverybusiness, DKS
prepared a parking analysisto support the application for a parking code exception. DKS prepared a shared parkinganalysis,supported byprimary data
collection, to demonstrate the adequacyof the proposed parkingsupply.
Economic BrPlanningSystems,Inc. (EPS) is a land eco- nomics consulting firm experienced in the full spectrum of services related to real estate development,the ?nancingof publicinfrastructure and government services, and assessing local ?scal and economic impacts.
Established in Berkeleyin 1983, EPS has providedcon»
suiting services to hundreds of public- and privatesector clients throughout Northern California and the U S. Our balanced portfolio of clients allowsus to
understand land use and developmenteconomics from
- Real Estate Market and DevelopmentFeasibility DeveloperNegotiationsand Transaction Support Financing Public Infrastructure, Amenities and Services - Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis - Public Private Partnerships .
Land Use Planningand Growth Management - Reuse, Revitalization, and Redevelopment HousingDevelopmentFeasibilityand Policy E
C
&PLANNING SYSTEMS
D
K
S
AS
SO
CI
AT
ES
P
ro
je
ct
Exam
ples
D
aw
nm
w
n
Specl?c Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.
EPSwas foundedon the principle that real estate development and land use-related public policy should be built on realistic assessment of market forces and economic trends.feasible implementation measures, and recognition of publicpolicyobjectives,includingprovisions for requiredpublic facilitiesand services. EPShas a deep understanding of policy formation at the local
level and the need to incorporate perspectives from residents, property owners, developers,tenants, and other stakeholders. This experience is supported by an analytical approach that stresses rigor, transparency, and objectivity rather than advocacy,and one that seeks to
engenderthe trust of clients and the publicat large.
As a central part of its consulting practice, EPS has
helped inform all aspects of planning the evolution.
revitalization, and programing of small downtowns
and other mixed-use commercial districts. Numerous
projects have been completedfor municipalities,developers, business associations, and property owners seeking to promote economic development.improve public infrastructure and amenities. and incentivize investment at strategic nodes and catalyticsites.
EPS also brings unique expertise with communities
that have strong links to the tourist economy including substantial work in northern California's so-called "wine country”. We understand the unique pressures
faced by these communities. including balancing the
needs of residents, visitors, and businesses, developing appropriate housing, and promoting economic diversity. We provide ?ne-grained analysiswith results and recommendations that are tailored to local market and
?nancial realities.unique physicaland geographicconsiderations.and community driven policyobjectives.
Project Examples
- Naps Downtown Speci?c Plan and General Plan
Update, Napa, California. After decades of gradual decline and lack of investment, the City Napa ter on the cache of its location in the of the Napa Valley and "wine country". As part of the DowntownSpeci?c Plan, EPS conducted mar- ket and feasibility analysisto identify and opportu- nity sites and developrealistic options to encourage redevelopmentof underutilized properties with the goal of creating a more vibrant, mixed-use district. EPS also evaluated ?nancing and implementation options to deliver public infrastructure and ame- nities. Guided by Speci?cPlan policiesand imple- mentation measures, Napa’sDowntown has evolved into a successful visitor destination with new hotels, restaurants, mixed-use residential, and enlivened entertainment venues.
Building on this success, EPS was subsequently
retained by the City, as part of a team leadby Dyett
8r Bhatia, to provide economic analysisin support
of the l . With a growing tourist economy, the City's priorities for the General Plan had evolved to include opportunities for eco- nomic diversi?cation, sustaining desirable employment prospects for residents, and strategic redevel— opment within a largely built-out city. EPS com- pleted an economic, demographic.and real estate pro?le that identi?ed Napa's competitive attributes
and positioning as well as challengesto sustainable
long-term growth that might be addressed by the
General Plan Update.While EPS gave specialconsideration to retail and visitor serving uses and their continued role in economic development,the analysis was expandedto include other emerging sectors such as health care and tech. The work culminated
in an Economic DevelopmentElement with a focus
on sustainable and equitable growth strategies to
avoid an over reliance on tourism sectors.
Healdsburg Housing Policy and Implementation Services, Healdsburg, California. The City of Healdsburg has been working to improve its
supply of affordable and "missing middle” housing in the face of an ongoing shortage and continued increase in housingdemand. While its highly appealingcommunity attributes and a livelyvisitorbased economy have provided substantial economic and ?scal bene?ts.it has also caused housing price
increases.further exacerbated by non-residenthome
ownership. Moreover, the City’s voter-approved
Growth Management Ordinance limited new housing construction to 30 units per year, severelyconstraining the addition of new market-rate housing.
Over the last decade EPS has providedthe City with
a variety of services to developpolicy and implementation measures to address housing shortages. was by the City Council in May 2023 and Certi?ed by HCD in Iune2023. EPS drafted the City’s original lnclusionaryZoning Ordinance.and subsequently provided revisions and updated the inclusionary housing in-lieu fees. Other efforts have included preparing revisions to the Growth Management Ordinance, identifying and forecasting new afford- able housing funding sources, assessing opportu- nity sites, and assisting with negotiations for indi- vidual affordable housingprojects. As a part of this work EPS has applieda range of supporting meth- ods including quantitativelybased housing needs assessment, ?nancial feasibilityanalysis,and budget and economic forecasting.
P
R
FOR CITY OF ST. HELENA
?g
ur al
gnPUpda?g
Agenda Item #12.1.
- Paci?ca General Plan Update and Sharp Park
Speci?c Plan, Paci?ca, California. As part of the
, and a subsequent Speci?c
Plan focused on its historic downtown, the City of
Paci?c sought to better understand opportunities to
improve its economy and better leverageits coast
line location 12 miles south of San Francisco. As a
subconsultant to Dyett 8: Bhatia, EPS contributed
to both the General Plan and Speci?cPlan e?'orts
by evaluating market conditions, development
opportunities, and public ?nancing strategies. For
the General Plan, which came ?rst, EPS evaluated
various strategies, such as “branding” and "place
making,” as well as the catalyticeffect of a luxury
or resort hotel, that would helpthe City to capture a growing share of the regionaltourism market. The EPS analysis was used to assist community lead
ers developpolicy choices and ultimatelyidentify
the historic Sharp Park neighborhoodas a strategic
location for further analysis.
EPSprovidedmore ?ne grained analysisof market
opportunities and economic feasibilityto support
the (approved in 2022)
The EPS market analysisfound that the historic
Sharp Park neighborhood, adjacent to a popular
public beach, presented opportunities for a more
activated mixed-use environment that could draw
both visitors and local residents. However, achiev
ing its the full developmentpotential faced mar ket and feasibility challengesthat would require a range of efforts on the part of the City, property
owners, developers, and others to overcome. To
support implementationof the plan objectives,EPS
also prepared a strategic ?nancingplan for targeted
publicand private investments designedto create a unique and cohesive sense of place. . Downtown Danville Real Estate Feasibility Assessment, Town of Danville, California. sector was locallyoriented. But because the Downtown serves as a central gathering place, a source of commu- nity pride, and the primary commercial district in Town, the City soughtto prioritize reinvestment to improve overall vibrancy.
Danville retained EPS to evaluate potential zoning
changesto spur new investment and development.
EPS conducted market analysis and performed
?nancial feasibility testing to identify potential
developmentopportunities in the Downtown. The
analysisrevealed that historical low densitydevelopment patterns had limited the broader mar- ket appeal of Downtown. Additional flexibility in allowable land uses, and developmentincentives
that reduce project costs would likely incentivize
investment. EPS also found that allowinggroundlevelservice retail, of?ce, and medical of?ce (along with traditional retail) would improve feasibility,
given stronger demand for these tenant types. In
addition, the EPS study identi?ed an opportunity
for commercial condominiums suited for service
retail and of?ce users. Finally,the analysisshowed
that fee waiver incentives, like those used for historic preservation projects, and reduced parking ratios would improve project economics. Along
with these recommendations, the study cautioned
that the Town should weighthe bene?ts of changes
to land use policy and/or the provision of incentives against potential secondary effects, such as potential impacts on parkingavailability.
Bottomley Design 8r Planning (BDP) is an urban
design and city planning ?rm specializingin pedestrian- and transit—orienteddevelopmentplanning and capital improvements. Work products include land
use and developmentmaster plans, regulatory/zoning
standards, design and developmentguidelines, and
detailed designsand construction drawingsfor streets
and public spaces. All BDP work is related to in?ll
development in existing cities and towns, and promotes TOD, completestreet, and green street design principles. Plans typically include traf?c/circulation
ment plans, diagrams,and 3D illustrations.
B&PLANNING DESIGN
Sharp Plg? Speg
i?g
gene
ra
l
Plan deate
Do wn
town
Speci?c Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.
u
Recent projects completedwith Dyett 8r Bhatiainclude
the Sonoma Developmental Center Speci?c Plan,
Union City BART Area Speci?cPlan, BelmontVillage
Speci?cPlan, Redwood City ElCamino RealPDA Plan,
and Winchester Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard
urban villageplan for San lose.Other recent projects
include the Newark Old Town Speci?c Plan/Thornton
Avenue Redesign,Mountain View Downtown Transit
Center Master Plan, Millbrae Downtown/El Camino
Real Speci?cPlan.East Santa Clara Street urban village
plan for San Jose, and the BayhillSpeci?cPlan for San
Bruno.
Proje tE a . Downtown Napa Riverfront, Napa CA. Responsibility:Prime Consultant. In?ll development prototypes, land use/developmentstandards, design guidelines, site plans and schematic designs for
capital improvements in the Downtown Reach of
the Napa River Flood Protection Project (PPP).
These improvements included three new bridges,an
8-acre river bypass channel/park,2 miles of public
access trails that include a riverfront promenade,
and renovation of Veterans Park, a river-edgecom- munity green. The work involved a series of ongoing public workshops, and coordination with City departments, the Napa County Flood Control District, Army Corps of Engineers, two community designadvisorypanels,and four engineering ?rms,
The overall goal of the work was a vision and consensus on capital improvements, development of adjacent private properties, architectural design
character, and designinterrelationshipsof the PPP’s
major design elements. Awards to-date include the
2010 Award of Excellence from the CaliforniaRedevelopmentAssociation and the 2009 Public Works Project of the Year Award from the American Public
Works Association.
Additional projects completedfor the City of Napa
Downtown Riverfront Urban Design Master Plan, Napa River Parkway Master Plan.Tannery Bend Development8: Design Guidelines, Riverside Drive Vision Plan. and the Downtown Plaza Corridor Master Plan. - Latham Square, Oakland CA. Responsibility: Lead
Consultant. Existing conditions analysis, concept
alternatives, community and staff design/workshop
process, 3D modeling,and construction documents
and support for recon?guration of the intersection
of Telegraph Avenue and Broadwayin Downtown
Oakland. Project includes intersection recon?guration, tra?ic calming, and plaza expansion within a National Register Historic District. The project
links the landmark Rotunda and Cathedral buildings with the thriving Uptown District and Oakland City Hall. Design elements include restoration of
the 1913 Latham Fountain, brick and stone replacement paving, rain gardenplanters, a range of seating options, programmablespecialty lighting, and historic/art panel installations. A series of community, statf steering committee, and public meetings and
hearingswere conducted to evaluate options, tradeof‘fs,and materials recommendations. BDP prepared the construction documents in conjunction with
Kimley Horn 8: Associates, Inc., civil and traf?c
engineers, and a team of specialtysubconsultants.
Construction completedsummer 2016.
0 Downtown Brentwood Streetscape Master Plan
8: Improvements, Brentwood CA. Responsibility:
Prime consultant for master plan, subconsultant
landscape architect for construction documents.
Work included existing conditions analysis, concept alternatives, community meeting process, and detailed design recommendations and phasingplan
for a lO-block.pedestrian-oriented downtown com mercial district. Principal elementsinclude conver sion of angle to parallelparking in order to widen
sidewalks from 10 to 20 feet, de?nition of downtown
gateway locations, traf?c calming and pedestrian
safety improvements, and linkage to a new Down
town civic center complex.A series of community
stat? steering committee, and public hearing meet
ings were conducted to evaluate options, trade-oil's,
streetscape construction as a to Carlson, Barbee 8t Gibson; construction completed in Spring 2012.
P
R
OF ST. FOR CITY HELENA
c mpl x
es
Agenda Item #12.1.
m
CommunityVisi
onin
g,
site planni and schematic design plans for the downtown reach of the Napa River Flood Prtecng, tionProject.Improvementsincl ude
rivmixed-use development, three bridges, new anB-acre river bypass channel/park. 2 erpri
ent
ed
milesofpublicaccesstrailsincl
udi
ng
ariverf promenade, and reconstruction of ariver~edge community The involved green. work ront a series ofcommunityworksh
ops
with cdepartments, City the District, Napa ood Control County US FArmy Corps of Engio o
r
di
n
at
io
n
neers,bridgeengineering?rms codesign advisory panels, and ongoing and development review. Work prducts inm mu
nit
y
cludedtheDowntownRiverfro
nt
and Developm Downtown Riverfront Urban Guidelines, Design Master and Napa River Plan, ent ParkwayMasterPlanThestilu
n
d
er
w
a
y
riverfro revitalization has effort received the 2010 Award of Excellence from the Calitornla nt RedevelopmentAssociationan
d
t200 Public Works Prject of the Year from Award the American Public Works Association 9 CityofNapa
7t"
2 's'>—1~th ‘-
--4 .P‘”(‘"_~ < r 3‘? -
> _ It“ A. “,3!
'1' ..:::'.i.:'.;.." #53”!
‘
/ "
/ J a,
4 RiverfrontU esignPlan
a
Speci?c Plan Dwntown
n
lU9“I
‘A
"2v/\I‘‘w
.‘'.__ H.
B
O
T
T
O
DESIGN &PLANNING PROFILES C
om
pl
ol
ed
Ahova Project from
Downt
Napa, own Ca
lif
P
r
o
/
s
c
u
Renderin
g
R
iv
er
fro
nt
Promen
ade
In
?ll
dan! av
el o
p
V
et eran
Park D
es
cr
ip
ti
: .
L.
=
rb
a
D
3'
C
li
Agenda Item #12.1.
”(a
Servicesincl
ude
d
excondition analysis, community meeting and staff design workshop concept alternatives. rst s
in
g
process,detaileddesign/3Dconstructio plans for the intersection of Telegraph and Avenue and Downtown Broadway in n Oakland.Theprojectfocuse
d
square-foot at the center of National Register aplaza Historic the cr linking 22,000 District, ati
ng
adjacentlandmarkRotunda Ca with the district and Oakland Civic Buildings thriving Uptown Center Speci?c design the
dr
al
elementsincluderestoratio
n
th1913 Latham brick and rain ofstone apaving, garden planters, seating options, Fountain, mrx e programmedstringlightinge
f
f
e
c
t
s
.
and histcn' panel insta ations. series of community. staffeering and public hear- Acommittee. dart ingmeetingswereconduct
ed
tevoptions trade-offs and materials recommendations. prepared construction streetscape BDP al
ua
te
plansinconjunctionwithKi
ml
ey
H&Inc civil and traf?c engineers. team of tants; Associate asubconsu construction specially s, o
m
completed2016.
‘1
I_!J
thamSquare
kland,California
B
O
T
T
O
M
L
E
Y
DESIGN &PLANNING PROFILES
ViewSouth 01Pla
za
aResto Fountain
nred
d0
0 0° 06
POSAL FOR CITY ST. HELEN
A
R
econ
?g
ur ati on
Options
Fl na
l
DConcept es
ig
n
F
o
rm
er
Inter
secti on
D
es
cr
ip
In
q4
Agenda Item #12.1.
Existingcond
ition
s
anal to-scale community concept process, and meeting detailed streetswpe alternatives. ysis
,
improvementrecommend
ations
anphasrn for panedestrianpriented downtown commercial d‘stnct. Principal elements 10-block. dg includeconversionofanye parking towiden sidewalks from 102de?nition of tolcations, downtown feet, gateway traf?c a
r
a
ll
e
l
calmingandpedestriansaf
ety
iand coordination wrth and construction of design adowntown c'vicenter complex. A seriesofcommunity,staffste
er
in
g
and were 0tradpffs, publ hearing meetings conducted toevaluate com options, and to mitte
e,
determineblock-byblockSi
d
e
w
al
k
and materials mprov recommendations prepared streetsmpe construction plans for BDP the emenl
s $5.5M?rstphaseproiectas tosBarbee &was completed Carlson, Gibson, construction 2012 in u
b
c
o
n
su
lt
an
t
CityofBrentwood
Do
wnt
own
Brent Master Plan Streetscape Improvements I
wood Bren
lwoo
d,
Calif
ornia
B
O
T
T
O
DESIGN &PLANNING PROFILES
O
ak
-SAngie parkngrior sidewalk towidening
u
n
n
i
{First and comer of Oak Struts mm
S
id
ew
al
k
Wideni 20'- Typical lo
ng
First andlo Oak Struts
ng
D
ow
n
Speci?c Plan
C
li
Agenda Item #12.1.
West Yost is a consulting engineering ?rm that was
founded in 1990. Our focus is exclusivelywater, recycled water, wastewater, groundwater, and stormwater. We provide planning. design, construction management, and program management services in these areas.
Headquartered in Davis, California, West Yost operates from 10 of?ces and has a team of more than 200 dedicated professionals.Our staff comprises certi?ed
or registeredexperts in various ?elds, includingchemical, civil, control systems, electrical.environmental, and mechanical engineering, as well as wastewater
treatment and regulatory compliance. We also have
specialistsin geology,engineering geology,hydrogen]-
ogy, architecture, GIS, control systems. cybersecurity, risk management, asset management. condition assess- ment. project management, and construction management and inspection services.
West Yost is dedicated to providing exceptional client
service and producinghigh-valuesolutions. We build
trust and long-termclient relationshipsthrough pro
active communication. West Yost's proactive approach
to project management enables us to provide respon
sive service and deliver work products that exceed the
expectations of our clients.
West Yost has provided General Plan support for the
followingagencies: . City of American Canyon
- City of Brentwood
- City of Ceres
- City of Millbrae
- City of Milpitas
- City of Dixon
- City of - Napa City Manteca - Sacramento .
San Marcos Santa Rosa Stockton - County of Sutter .
City of Thrlock Vacaville
West Yost has providedservices as part of Dyett 8rBhatia’steam on several projects: . City of Pleasanton Downtown Speci?c Plan Water SupplyAssessment
- City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan Update
- City of Ceres General Plan Update
- City of Dixon General Plan Update
- City of Fair?eld General Plan Update
- City of Fair?eld Multi-ModalRail Station
- City of Lodi General Plan Update Infrastructure
Analysis
- City of Napa GeneralPlan Update . City of TurlockGeneral Plan Update West Yost has workedwith the City of St. Helena since
2004 on more than 10 projects. Our current/recent
projects include:
- Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant Condition
Assessment . Clearwell8rTank lA Rehabilitation
- RecycledWater Facilities Plan
- SafeYield Estimate and Water NeutralityPolicy
Past projects with the City include: . Engineering Supportfor Water Rights - General Plan UpdateEnvironmental Impact Report
- StonebridgeWells Water Treatment Plant Filter Restoration - Potable Water Storage Tank 1A Design and Construction ManagementServices - Tank [A EngineeringServicesDuring Construction
- Water Conservation Assistance
- 2003 Urban Water ManagementPlan
- Wastewater Treatment Reclamation Plant Upgradesand Water RecyclingProject Design Project Ex 5 - General Plan Update and Ongoing Support, City of Dixon, CA As a subconsultant to Dyett Er Bhatia, from 2015 to 2021, West Yost provided infrastruc- ture support for City's General Plan Update (GPU). Support included potable water, sewer collection systems, wastewater treatment, and storm drainage and ?ood control.West Yost prepared a background report, identi?ed infrastructure requirements and costs for GPU land use alternatives and for the pre- ferred land use plan, and supported of the GPU P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
FOR CITY OF ST. HELENA
am
pl
Agenda Item #12.1.
Environmental Impact Report. The City adopted
the GPU in May2021.
West Yost prepared the City's Storm Drain Report
(SDR) in 1999, and has since been providingstormwater services to the City. The SDRincluded delineating the City into eight watersheds, developing computer drainage models for four of the water—
sheds, and planning and sizing the required infrastructure to address existing drainage problems and to support the future buildout of the City. The
planning work has included close coordination
with the downstream agricultural drainage agencies to identify drainage projects that maximized the bene?t to the City and the downstream agencies while limitingthe project costs. From this project, West Yost preparedthe Dixon RegionalWater— shed Management Plan, which identi?es three
regionaldrainageprojects. TWOof the projects were designedby West Yost and have been constructed.
West Yost is currently preparing an update of the
SDR based on the new General Plan. West Yost is
currently providing stormwater developmentsupport to the City to identify speci?c infrastructure and timing of the infrastructure for speci?c development projects.
In addition, West Yost prepared the City's Water
Master Plan and an update to the Water Master
Plan. The updated plan identi?ed the major infrastructure needed to support the GPU, including new wells, water tanks, and water transmission
mains. West Yost is currentlyproviding water system developmentsupport to the City to identify infrastructure requirements and timing of the
infrastructure forspeci?cdevelopmentprojects.
General Plan Update, City of Sacramento, CA. As
a subconsultant to Dyett 8r Bhatia, West Yost prepared updates of the BackgroundReport from the age, Sewer and Wastewater Treatment sections. West Yost also provided support for Green House Gas Reduction opportunities related to these wet utilities.West Yost reviewed and commented on the GPU policiespreparedby Dyett 8r Bhatia. We pre- pared a Technical Memorandum (TM) that sum- marized the estimated water demands for exist- ing conditions, buildout of the current General Plan, and a base GPU land use alternative. For the GPU Environmental Impact Report, we prepared a Storm Drainage TM and Sewer/WastewaterTM to identify potential impacts of the GPU and recom- mended actions to reduce the impact to an insignificant level.
The storm drainageTM providedestimated relative
increases in peak storm water flows and volumes
resulting from the current General Plan growth
and from the GPU preferredland use plan growth.
We provideda brief, qualitativediscussioncomparing up to two other land use alternatives with the preferredland use plan.We identi?ed General Plan
policiesthat address the increased runoff rates and
volumes.
Similarly, West Yost prepared a TM for sewer/
Wastewater treatment. The TM estimated the average dry weather flow (ADWF) and the peak wet weather flow (PWWF) for existing conditions,
buildout of the current General Plan, and the GPU
preferredland use plan.We compared the ADWFs
and PWWFs and identi?ed signi?cant changes
from the current General Plan with the updated
General Plan. We provided a brief, qualitativediscussion comparing up to two other land use alternatives with the preferredland use plan.We identi- ?ed General Plan policiesthat can address changes
in the ADWFs and PWWI-‘s.
General Plan Update, City of Napa, CA. As a subconsultant to Dyett 8r Bhatia, West Yost provided infrastructure support for the update of the Napa
General Plan. West Yost conducted brief, qualitative evaluations of the existing water supply/water treatment/water distribution, sewer/wastewater
treatment, and stormwater/?ood control facilities.
This evaluation was based on information provided
in existing water, Wastewater, and stormwater master plan documents, supplementedwith discussions with City and Napa Sanitation District (NSD) staff.
In addition.West Yost providedpreliminary, comsystem for the land use included major infrastructure cost estimates. West Yost reviewed the draft General Plan Update (GPU) infrastructure-related goalsand policiesdoc- ument and provideda draft and ?nal comment tech- nical memorandum (TM). West Yost provided the peer review and comments on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Report (EIR) Hydrologyand Public Utilities sections of the EIR for the GPU. The team identi?ed additional potential impacts and recom- mend mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a lessthan signi?cantlevel.
D
ow
n
tow
n
Plan Spani?c
Agenda Item #12.1.
stand
scope
St. Helena Downtown is one of BayArea'smost charm—
ing, with well-preservedold buildings. and numerous shops and galleriesto linger and enjoy on a stroll, particularly along the traditional Main Street. Adjacent streets also have some stores. as well as galleries, of?ces, and dining establishments. Within a block or
two of the Main Street are also banks and of?ces with
large parking lots, with possibilitiesof redevelopment
to contribute to contribute to Downtown vitality.
As the sole downtown in the valleybetween the northernmost Calistoga and Napa at the southern end. and located in the heart of one of the world's most famous
wine regions, shops in downtown—such as upscale
boutiques,gift shops, dining establishments, and galleries—cater largelyto visitors, although there is also a grocery store (Sunshine Market) and a supermarket
(Safeway)as well as banks and other services for locals.
As the pandemic fades, Downtown has seen a drop in
vacancies, with very few available retail spaces, particularly along the sought-after, roughly three-block National Historic Register Main Street stretch. Stores
such as Tweed and Vine and ElyseWalker have reshuf-
?ed their locations and renewed their commitments to
Tacos, Pizza Station, Orion tast- ing rooms—all along Main Street—as well as Char- lie’sPlace along Railroad Avenue will bolster the cur- rent somewhat limited dining/tasting options. and help widen Downtown‘s commercial base. The RFP outlines the Speci?c Plan objectivesclearly. TheCity is lookingto: - Prepare a Speci?c Plan to strengthen Downtown’s identityas epicenter of food and wine culture, pro- mote additional dining options, and enhance Down— town’s visual and other "sensory"qualities,Ensure
that new developmentis cohesive and in keeping
with Downtown’s exceptional character and presence of historic resources. . Enhance the public realm - including through streetscapes, potential Main Street sidewalk widening for outdoor dining. public gathering spaces including accommodating larger gatherings at
Lyman Park, and possibilitiesfor temporal street
closures and activating alleyways.
- Outline Possibilities for the ?ve catalytic sites, as well as other opportunities such as banks with parking lots taking prime real estate. with considerations of Downtown vibrancy, ?scal sustainability and ability to pay for improvements, and realize potential for City Hall relocation to the Adams] LibraryLane site.
- Ensure that parking supplymatches demand.land
use and roadway con?guration changes are fully
analyzed,and need for infrastructure reflected and
incorporated.
- Ensure that the Speci?c Plan is thorough and
detailed, with clear policies and design standards
that fully re?ect community priorities and City
needs.
- Conduct environmental review to address the
planned changes.so implementationcan be streamlined and without need to conduct project-by-project analysis. . Engage the community, property owners, decisionmakers and others to ensure that the plan reflects community priorities and results in successful
implementation.
is allysupportive of housing as well as affordable housing (and portions of some of the key sites are designated for affordablehousing in the City's Housing Element). there are divergent views on local vs. visitor-serving uses. In particular designationsthat permit new hotels or for the City to pursue hotel uses on the Former City Hall or the Old City Hall sites (along Main Street and Railroad Avenue) has the potential to be controversial, requiring sensitive community outreach and discussion framing. Thisissue was one of the hot topics in the City of Napa General Plan that we recentlyprepared. and which we were able to successfullyresolve. The com- munity has a historyof being“anti-growth" and “antiKEYCO N
RATI
ONS
Land Use
/
Mi
xes
lPo
ssib
iliti
es
for the Key
Sites; Lo
cal
vs. Visitor- Uses
Servin
g
APP
.
0AND
A SCO
PE
OF WOR
2.1 PR
APPRO OJ
ACH NE
DC
T
U
N
D
E
RS
T
A
N
DI
N
G
In this ?rst under we our projecr present
ing and followed the bykey topics,
of work
.
PR
OJ
EC
T
OBJEC
TIVES
K
E
Y
OB
JE
CT
IV
ES
S
I
Agenda Item #12.1.
as
hotel". However, according to City staff, the community open houses in October for the proposedresort at the Krug Winery did not receive signi?cant blow back
or rejection. Recently (2023) the City has been intentionally communicating a narrative to residents that getting out of our ?scal crisis will involve many tools. one of them beingallowingat least two more hotels to
bring in needed transient occupancy taxes (TOTs) to
balance the budget.
Similarly, we would need to exploreif the community
supports more active nightlife downtown and thus
encourage more bars and restaurants with extended
hours - this is an issue we have encountered in many
previous downtown planning efforts, and resolved
through listeningto community concerns and intelligent land use planningand zoning.
Adams/Library Lane Site/New City Hall
Accordingto City staff, the Adams/LibraryLane Cityowned site has been mired by controversy/lack of consistent vision for a long time. The overall Visioning process for the Speci?c Plan early on should include
discussion of what this ?ve-acre site shouldbe, in addition to a small portion as housingas identi?ed in the HousingElement. TheCity is currentlyleasingthe City
Hall site on CollegeAvenue from Napa ValleyCollege.
Due to higherpriority funding needs and current ?scal
challenges.City staff does not see the City building a
new City Hall in the next 10years. However.hotelscan be part of the strategy to generate revenue to enhance the City's bonding capacity to proceedwith City Hall
plans in a shorter time frame.
Market Demand and Fiscal Sustainability
This is related to the previous topics. Given St. Helena's strategic and desirable location, there is likelyto be continued demand for most of the uses likelyunder
consideration for the key sites in the Speci?c Plan.
There are currently few retail vacancies, and if the more affordably. Thus, our scope includes ?nancial- feasibility analysis of development on key sites. From the City ?scal perspective. and the ability to support improvements and a potentiallynew City Hall on the Adam/Library Lane site, it is likely that TOTs from hotel uses would need to part of feasibilityconsider- ations. Fiscal evaluation of various land use outcomes and assessment of costs required for streetscape and other improvements will help inform community dis- cussion and decision-maker direction.
Sidewalk Widening/Parking
Widening Main Street sidewalks to promote outdoor
dining by removing parking alongsideis one of the
principal ULI TAP report recommendations. Removing a median that exists in stretches and left turn pockets may also provide additional space for widenings.
While promoting more active street life is a desirable
objective,the number of dining establishments fronting Main Street is currentlysmall.althoughmore eating and drinking establishments may seek to locate if this proves successful. Sidewalks can also be widened
in pocketsto provideoutdoor dining space, while providing pulloverloadingand limited on-street parking.
Our scope of work includes developmentof a detailed
streetscape plan the Main Street in three dimensions
using Sketch Up, with details on sidewalk widths.
parking. and street furnishings, by BottomleyAssociates, streetscape designexperts. in addition to gateway treatments, as well strategies related to Hunt Avenue
temporal or partial closure.open spaces, alleywaysand
plazas and community gatheringspaces.
Former City Hall/Lyman Park
St. Helena lacks public gathering spaces the size of
other North Baydowntowns, such as plazas of Windsor, Healdsburg.Sonoma.or Santa Rosa, although St.
Helena is by far a much smaller town. Clearly, with
the gazebo location and the presence of some trees
in sightlines,the park does not easily lend itself to
outdoor events like concerts. The park is also on the
smaller side for such activities (about one acre. com- pared to say4.5 acres for Windsor Town Square, which has summer concerts). Using industry rule of thumb,
the one acre park can probablyaccommodate about
300 to 350 people,even if the space were a lawn with
no trees. Through intelligentplanning of Key Site 1
(Old City Hall on Main Street) to the north of the park, includingpotentially removing the internal road.the
park size could probablybe increased by 50% without
sacri?cing building area. Both the (redeveloped)City
the park could also be designedwith dining establish- ments. especiallyalong portions closer to Main Street, with ample outdoor dining spaces overlooking the open space. that would also activate this portion of Main Street without interfering with Main Street traf- ?c flow. an
n
tn
Spaci?: Flun
Agenda Item #12.1.
rastructu
Water supply and use is another hot button commu
nity issue in St. Helena, and there are also infrastruc ture constraints in Downtown. Our team includes
West Yost, who bring familiarity with St Helena and
have worked with us on multiple projects including
recentlyfor the City for Napa, from which St. Helena
purchasessome water—to help thoroughlyanalyzeand
cost infrastructure improvements.
erations
Our scope of work includes evaluation of future traf
frc conditions with projected additional (additional
to General Plan) growth, with a focus on 13 intersec
tions seven within downtown and six additional
key ones. Rather than simplyrunning the future land
use projections as they exist by default in the Napa
Solano transportation model (which would not realis
tically re?ect future land uses), this would require us to update the land use projections in the General Plan
by traffic analysiszones (TAZs) with changesresulting
from the HousingElement sites and additional Speci?c
Plan growth. With our understanding of General Plan
growth projections and strong in house geographic
information systems (GlS) capabilities,we will be able
to efficientlycarry out this work.
el of Envi
Because General Plan and zoning map amendments
would be needed, and growth projections would exceed
what was contemplated in the General Plan, environmental review for the project will be needed. Furthermore, the General Plan EIR had signi?cant unavoidable impacts for Air Quality; Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change; and Transportation (as
well as AgriculturalResources), and regardlessof what
environmental document is settled upon, these topics
will need to be analyzedin detail.
There is no way to do a “MitigatedNegDec” forsigni?-
cant unavoidable impacts. However, we believe that an
able impacts of the General Plan EIR is likelyto su?'ice. should no new signi?cant and unavoidable impacts result. In addition to the topics listed in the previous paragraph, the EIR would also update the Land Use, Population,and Housing section. Should new impacts result, a SupplementalEIR may be appropriate; the basic effort of the two would be similar, however, the SupplementalEIR will require public noticing (prepa- ration of a NOP, scoping meeting, circulation of Draft EIR.and preparation and certification of the Final EIR, which would add to the cost), and likelyuse of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for traf?c analysis,rather than level of service (LOS), which was used for the General Plan EIR (the General Plan EIR reported VMT for
informational purposed). Our scope includes preparation of both LOSand VMT analysis,which would provide ?exibilityfor the environmental approach.
As D&B (with Principal Andrew Hill) prepared the
General Plan ElR. D8rB can carry out this task ef?-
ciently
H
Dyett 8r Bhatia specializesin speci?c plans, general
plans,and zoning work.Over the years. we have honed
processes and methods to deliver the highest quality
of products,on time and budget, and to provide value
to our clients byleveragingour exceptionalexperience
with similar work for BayArea cities and throughout
the western United States.
Key aspects of our overall strategy and approach to
assignments include:
plementation
At Dyett BrBhatia we truly believe that implementation is an integral part of the planningprocess, not an afterthought. This will be critical to ensure that the
planning amendments have the desired result, that
they do not just represent "shelf-art" but rather serve as an effectivetool for city-buildingby programming
public improvements and guiding private development. Our considerable experience writing zoning and developmentregulations informs practicalpolicyformulation and code drafting to e?'ectivelyachieve com- munity goals.
Dyett Br Bhatia brings extraordinary experience in
writing zoning, shaping some of the most vibrant
downtowns across the country, including Portland,
San Diego, and Chicago, to smaller North Baydowntowns. Our scope of work includes preparation on new design and developmentregulations,re?ecting comon certainty in process, reduce staff developmentburden, and ensure transparency and fairness.
W...” nu um: u. an
"L
x 12m
\ 1..“luv—u!
rm..."
u.‘ an...“ mum—«- ahump—v w...- mung...
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
FOR CITY OF ST. HELENA
O
U
R
AP
PR
OA
C
W
ate
r
Sup
ply/
lni
r
o
n
m
e
nt
al
Review
E
m
p
h
as
iz
in
lm
F
ut
ur
e
Traf? Op
c
A
pp
ro
pr
iat
e
Lev
Agenda Item #12.1.
ParificaGP and {‘3’
SPEIR Mapping
At Dyett 8r Bhatia we mix Euclidean.form-based, and
performance-based zoning to best meet a project’s
objectives. Zoning should be easy to understand and
implement,balance ?exibility and certainty, and lead
to positive on-the-groundresults. Zoning done in concert with speci?cplans opens possibilitiesof applying controls areawide, to a district or a corridor, or to speci?c uses and buildingtypes. These need to be thoughtfully explored and applied, while avoiding unnecessary complexity.Parking regulations would need to be developedin synchronywith the parking study.We
would also seek to leveragethe City's recently com- pleted zoning regulations. Ensuring that the regulatory framework is streamlined, and design and development regulationsprovidecertainty while promoting vibrant.livable environments will be a key component
of the process.
Dyett BrBhatia has led Ele on more than a dozen speci?c plans in the Bay Area, as described in the ?rm quali?cations.Dyett & Bhatia also preparedthe St. Helena General Plan Elk, and is thus intimatelyfamiliar with it. Because several impacts in that EIR were signi?cant and unavoidable, a Negative Declaration for the Speci?cPlan will not suf?ce, as per the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Our base scope
and budget assume an Addendum to the General Plan
EIR, as permitted under CEQA.This would include a
thorough transportation analysis,using updated citywide land use projections and using the new Napa Solano Activity Based Model (which DKS and DSKB
recentlyused forthe City ofNapa GeneralPlan), updating greenhousegases, energy, air quality,land use, and population and housing analysis;and reviewing other
sections to ensure adequacy.We will also consult with
City staff on water supplyissues, which can be signi?-
cant in St. Helena.Speci?cPlan policydevelopmentand
environmental impact assessment will be conducted in
parallel, as environmental impacts are identi?ed, Plan
policies will be developedto mitigate these impacts,
resulting in a "self-mitigating"plan. The process will
also minimize the environmental review required for
the evaluation of future developmentprojects that are
consistent with the Speci?cPlan.
Dyett BrBhatia will have overall responsibilityfor all
products. 138:)? will review and comment on products
by sub-consultants, and sub-consultants shall revise
their products,prior to submittal to City staffor incorporation in larger documents. This will ensure that City staff review time is spent ef?ciently and work by
different team members is fully integrated prior to
review.
The City of St. Helena has established community
engagement as a priority for the project. A plan is
only successful if it re?ects the aspirations and priorities of the community. To be effective, the community engagement strategy must providemeaningful opportunities for input and be outcome driven in order to inspire con?dence and rally the community around
the adoptedplan. Drawingon our award-winningoutreach experience, Dyett 8r Bhatia will collaboratewith City staff to developand implementa creative community engagement strategy that generates input from a wide range of voices in the community. Community workshops, stakeholder meetings, online survey, and
other tools will bring people into the process and give each person an opportunity to share opinions and provide feedback.
This section outlines Dyett Br Bhatia’s approach to
community outreach and participation, and provides
an overview of program components. Note. however,
that the program is preliminary and adaptable. We
look forward to workingwith City staff to re?ne this
program to best address the particular needs of this
project. Our approach emphasizes engaging participants in positive and productivedialogueto collaborativelydevelopa shared vision in the community’sown voice.
Inte
grat
ed
Planning Environmental and
Revi
ew
C
O
ENGAGEME
NT
Q
ua
lit
y
Contr
ol
anm
ow
n
Spaci?: Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.
as
To set the foundation for the community engagement
effort and project-relatedmaterials (print and digital), we will designa logoand branding to uniquelyidentify the Downtown Speci?cPlan. The logowill be used on
all project documents and outreach materials.
The website will provide background and meeting
information, reports, and maps related to the project,
and will be kept up to date throughoutthe project. As
exampleof websiteused byDBrBfor a speci?cplan,see
link. Thewebsitewill also include an email signup feature to get on the project email list. Email noti?cations will be sent out at four keystages in the process and to announce community workshops(we can provide the
project email list to staff to send out additional noti?- cations).
Our work program includes four workshops at three
stages in the process: during initial issue identi?cation, when alternatives are evaluated, and following preparation of a Draft Plan (typically conducted as an
“openhouse"). Workshops will be designedto be fun.
educational, and inclusive, giving community mem- bers the opportunity to learn about the process, make informed choices, and see how the plan responds to
their input. We will work with staff to design the workshopsin a way that is most responsive to community needs—especiallywith regardsto time of day,location,
and accessibility.All workshop results will be sum- marized and made available on the project website, we want community members to know that their input has been recorded and is beingconsidered in the planning process. Workshops are assumed to be in person; if desired.one or more workshopscan be conducted
virtually.
Knowing that many residents lead busy lives and may
an to com- plementworkshopsand give peoplethe opportunity to participate in the process on their own time. The user- friendly survey will integrate maps and images with a range of question types to encourage participants to engage with, comment directlyon, and rate according to their preferencesand priorities. At the outset of the project, six to eight small group (two or three people)meetings will be held with rep- resentative members of the community and decision- makers to understand salient issues and concerns in a candid setting. These would be virtual or planned as in-person over one day at City Hall or another conve- nient location.
MUNIIBAR
Our Community Engagement Strategy includes time
for smallgroup meetings with residents, business own
ers. community leaders and other stakeholders. These
are expected to be largelyvirtual. Additional meetings
could be done by staff or added to our scope if desired and if budgetpermits.
We will work closelywith the DTSC throughout the
egies, recom mendations to decision-makers at critical junctures We would expect most of these meetings to be virtual Decision-makers will be involved at key stages in the process, to receive community feedback, provideinput and direction, and ensure there are no surprises at the end of the process. One joint Planning Commission/ City Council Meeting,two Planning Commission meetings, and two City Council meetings are bud- geted, as well as ?ve additional (virtual, time-certain) meetings with other commissions.
PLANNI
NG
CITY AND
O
M
M
IS
SI
O
N
COUNCI
L
(5; HEARINGS AND IN
PERSON) OTHE COMMISSION I5:
RS VIRTUAL)
DO
WN
TO
WN
(DTSC) STEERIN COMMTTEE
G ME
ETI
NG
S
I4)
C
O
M
M
U
N
IT
Y
(4) WORKSHOP HOUSE
S/OPEN
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
INOTIFICATIONS WEBS TE
C
O
M
M
U
N
IT
Y
(4-6) GROUPS
CSURVEY
P
R
HELENA FOR CITY OF ST
PLAN A
C
I
F
I
C
m
ELk
HAY'
ouw
Am
p...“
Agenda Item #12.1.
St. H
el en
a
of Area's withell old Dow isone most preserved and charming. Bay and tonumerous buildings, shops and galleries linger onaejoy ntow
n
stroll,theraditional Main Street along
0)::
D
ow
nt ow
n
Speci?c Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.
Key opportuni
ty
aslabeled the sit as(1) Old of which could be1-5 EH" inredevelopment City reorganized internal road andd Hall. remove acre to es, age to Lyman Hall (2) Farmer (3) Lane, which City has been mired for atime Adams/Library and long accommodate incan apotentially controversy new City HallVa (5) and Bank Ctholic School along Oak of America Avenue. can t Agenda Item #12.1.
D-wnuwu sum": n.“
t?! 4
A ke
y
of the bewill project realm public enhancing including through Main Street potential sidewalk improvement. streetscape widening for o
ut
d
o
or
and for possibilities temporal closures dinin and street alleyways activating g,
.J
"'6"? . In" hi‘é‘?
‘
h:
Agenda Item #12.1.
F St HELEN)
.gu
in ad
dit
io
n
there other sites, are development key and banks olderf?ce Main Street ontoincluding along side buildings opportunities, streets. and o
p
p
o
r
tu
n
i
t
ie
s
toextend Downtown’s Main tobeyond energy Street
Lyman Pa
rk
cobeof Old Hall torefurbished for eventsxpanded through intelligent planning and with City the south and new uses toconcerts. ul
d north wit
h
outdoor the adining overlooking spaces open space
(0“-
‘ Agenda Item #12.1.
E OF WORK
Thissection outlines the scope of work for the project.
Meetings and products are summarized at the end of
each task.
The task-by-task descriptionsthat follow present our
approach to data collection, alternatives analysis,pol
icy formulation and preparation of the documents
Each task descriptionincludes a purpose statement at
the beginning.
The team for the project consists of:
. DSrB:Dyett 8r Bhatia, Prime Consultant . DKS:DKSAssociates, Transportation Planners and Engineers . BDP: BottomleyDesign and Planning, Landscape Architects . EPS: Economic 8r Planning Systems, Economic Consultants
- WY: West Yost.Civil Engineers
— PROJECT COMM
Objective Complete introductory and information
gathering tasks Ongoingproject management.
ormation Gathering
The consultant shall review and collect existing infor
mation about the study area. Primary sources of infor
mation are the General Plan. the General Plan EIR,
and appendices.Renaissance Plan.Cultivate St. Helena
streetscape plan, ULI TAP report, Money Way study,
Main Street Commercial National Register listing,
Economic Strategy Plan (2021) SHAPE report, Sur
plusLands Act staff reports and Retail Analysis(2018)
The Consultant shall also review the recentlyadopted
Zoning Code and Housing Element Update.In addi
tion. the consultant will work with other City depart
ture City will information on current development projects The selected consultant will review and use this informa tion. and submit any data requests needs to City staff to developthe Plan. The consultant(s) and City staff will meet to review and ?nalize the work scope and project schedule. The meeting will include a discussion of project goals, opportunities and constraints, provision of relevant backgroundinformation and documents for the exist ing conditions analysis arrangement of informational meetings with relevant City staff members, development of the community engagement program, and project management.
- Project commencement meeting with City staff . Detailed project schedule includingmeetings with community and DTSC, key deliverables, public review periods and adoption hearings. Project schedule for the CEQA and detailed milestones
should be represented conconcurrentlywith Specific Plan process. 0 Memorandum summarizing the meeting
unity Engagement Strategy
The City of St. Helena values input from our community and advocates community engagement throughout the planning process of any strategic plans. The ComprehensiveZoning Code update included robust
outreach and stakeholder participation. For the Specific Plan, staff anticipates a more focused approach, with a proposed Downtown Steering Committee
(DTSC) and more participation by City committees
and commissions, such as the Parks and Recreation
Commission, the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee, the Planning Commission, and City Council. In addition, consultants can expect to
workwith staffto schedule regular check-inswith Subcommittee throughout the Plan process. With assistance from City staff, the consultant will developan engagement strategy. which will focus on engaging key
business owners, property owners, and residents, as well as check in at project milestones with St. Helena committees and commissions. The consultant team
shall consider community outreach strategies and
methods, includingonline surveys.
The main goalsofthe community engagement strategy
will be to
representing a wide range of community stakehold- ers Provide information to the DTSCand broader com- munity regardingwhat is a SpecificPlan and how it is different than prior studies such as Renaissance Plan. - Invite input on features of the existing City policies and programs that have been successful and those that have been lesssuccessful - Provide information to the community and City commissions and committees, including but not limited to the PlanningCommission in connection Task —Kick- wth Meeting Key City 1
off .2
Staf
f
aConsu
nltant
d
2.2 S
C
O
P Deliverables/Meetings:
D
ow
nt ow
n
Speci?c Plan
T
a
s
k
—Comm 1.3
PHA
SE
1 Task -Inf
Agenda Item #12.1.
u
with joint meetings with the City Council, Parks
and Recreation Commission, Active Transportation
Sustainability Committee, Downtown Subcommit
tee regarding the purpose of the Plan update and
clearlydescribe the impacts, bene?ts, the scope and
contents of the Plan, and implementationtiming
- Provide opportunities for stakeholders and inter
ested community members to plan for the future
of their community, including seeking input on
the vision for the area, land use, the public realm,
streetscape, and the ?nal preferred alternative.
The DTSC will be made up of a wide range of commu
nity stakeholders. Members will be identi?ed and asked
to participate in meetings with stat? and consultants.
The purpose of the DTSC is to involve the community
in the Plan process in a focused.technically-oriented
manner, to be leaders and a voice for the community.
and to ensure that their input and interests are heard
and re?ected. The group will helpreview plan concept
developedby the consultants and ensure that commu
nity sentiment is re?ected in the Plan.
The strategy should include an approach for contact
ing all business and property owners within the Pla
boundaries. The project budgetshould include the cos of preparing community meeting notices. as well a any meeting materials (such as informational or educa
tional mate-rials, staff reports, and presentations, etc. renderings. and photographic simulations that will
assist in the engagement process.
The consultant will work with City staff to developa
project logo, develop a website to providebackground
and meeting information.reports. and maps related to
the project. The external project website will be linked to the City's website. City and consultantstaffwillpost information to keep the site current.
Task 1 4 Stakeholder Interviews
on members, the Downtown Speci?c Plan Steering Com- mittee, Planning Commissioners, City Council and stakeholders to determine what is working well and what challengesneed to be addressed. - Stakeholder interviews Memorandum summarizing interviews ?ndings Community Engagement Strategy - MeetingMaterials ProjectLogographicdesign website 85 0
e consultan sh uld anticipate biweeklyto weekly
(as needed) pr je t update conference calls between
the consultant and City staff throughout the duration
of the project This task should provide for bi weekly
l-hour conference calls for a 2 year timeline, and other associated project management.
Optional Additional Project UpdateConferenceCalls.
This will providefor 25 additional Zoom meetings/calls
(@1hour each) over the course of the project, enabling
weeklycheck in during keyproject phases.The cost for
this will be $6,500.
. Project Management Bi Weekly Conference Calls
(with optionaladditional weeklycalls)
bjectivePrepare xisting conditionsreport, document
g land use, opportunity sites, and key development
onstraints. The report will be map based and visual in
oture, with supportive text, table, and charts as needed i
n existing conditions and opportunities map and
report will be developed.The consultant will evaluate
the existing physicaland regulatoryconditions in the
project studyarea. This information includes:
Existing land use; physical conditions; environmental conditions; urban form; public realm; streetscape; pending and approveddevelopmentprojects; planned
public and private improvement projects; historic
resources; and development constraints. Based on
and constraints in the Plan area shall be identi?ed. As part of the work, a 3D modelwillbe prepared depicting existing street and frontage conditions for the princi- pal three-block stretch of Main Street; it will be used to illustrate alternatives and policy recommendations for development,streetscape, and circulation in later phasesof the project. Transit service will be summarized. For traf?c and parking, the scope is summarized separatelyas Task A: Parking, and Task B: Tra?ic Study. The “existing" portion of these studies will be completedat the same PHASE 2 — EXISTI
NG
COAND
ND
ITI
ON
S
INITIALOUTREAC
H
O : e
in
c
n
Task 2.1 — Existing Report
I ncluding maps)
A
k —-Projec Management Bi-Weekly
t C nf
er
e
n
ce
Calls
Th to
ac
L
an
d
Use and Regulatory Context Physical,
,
PFD
T
ran
si
t
Traf?c; Parking and
D
eli ve
rabl
es/
M
ee
lin
gs
Agenda Item #12.1.
4|
time as the Existing Conditions Report, and information either included within the report or as a separate attachment. For parking, the parking occupancy survey results would be available. For traf?c.include
updated existing intersection analysis at 13 locations
would be completed.
West Yost willprepare a brief.qualitative evaluation of the existing water supplyand distribution.wastewater
collection and treatment. and storm drainagefacilities
relevant to the Speci?c Plan area. This evaluation will be based on information provided in existing infrastructure master plans, capital improvement plans. and other available studies.supplementedwith discussions with City staff to identify changes/additions since completionof the plans.
This work task will also include preparation of schematic ?gures of existing facilities (water. wastewater and storm drainage) based on CAD/GIS utility mapping of these existing facilities to be providedto West Yost by the City. We will prepare a draft and ?nal
Technical Memorandum (TM) providing the utilityrelated backgroundfor the Speci?cPlan process. This task includes one meeting with City staff to learn about the existing utilities.
- Existing Conditions and Opportunities Report
includingOpportunities and Constraints Map
Task 2.2 — DT Steering Committee Meeting #1
The ?rst meeting of the DTSC will occur after completion of the existing conditions and opportunities analysis. The purpose of the meeting is to understand the community'svision for the Plan area and solicit input
on opportunities. issues. and hopes for the area. The
consultant will developa strategy to understand com- munity preferenceswithin the Plan area. o DTSC Meeting Notice (staff) and Agenda #1 (con- sultant) .
DTSC Meeting #1.includingattendance and facili- tation. and all necessary meeting mate-rials - DTSCMeetingsummary Task 2.3 — Community Workshop #1 Following the DTSC meeting. a community work- shop with the broader community will be held to solicit additional feedback.The meeting will provide input regardingcommunity interests that will help in the developmentof two concept Plan alternatives. The consultant will lead this meetings. Conduct a com munity workshopvisioning session, open to all com munity members.to assist the team in understanding issues and considerationsfrom a community perspec
tive. This could be conducted as a formal workshopor
a drop-in open house. Regardless of the format the
objectivesare as follows: . Provide an overview of the speci?c plan and envi ronmental review process . Present ?ndings from the existing conditions tech nical analysis . Engage community members in a dialogue about their vision for Downtown and their concerns and
priorities
. Community Workshop1 agendaand websitenotice
- Community Workshop1.includingattendance and
facilitation.and all necessary meeting materials
- Community Workshop1 summary
Task 2.4 Com unity Survey
An online community survey will be conducted to
understand community priorities and preferences
related to keyopportunity sites and other development
possibilities,parking and streetscape design. community gathering spaces. and other issues of interest or concern. Results of the survey will be summarized in
a short report.
IVb . Community Survey
- Community Survey Summary Report
- IointPlanning Commission/City Council meeting
summary notes
- (Up to four (4) consultant/staffmeetings with com munity groups. residents.business owners, etc.
HASE 3 LTERNAT Objective: Prepare alternatives.based on the extst ing conditions analysis.market demand study. DTSC. decision-maker. and public input. Conduct outreach to present the alternatives and determine a preferredplan. Task 3.1 Prepa Alternatives Followingthe initial meetings and outreach.the con sultant will developtwo different urban de-sign sce narios. The scenarios will be “high level."and include — C
O
N
C
E
P
T
PLAN
IV
E
S
ra
ti
o
n
of Two Plan Concept
D
el
iv
erab
le
s/
M
ee
ti
De
liv
erab
les
/
M
eenn
gs
D
el
les/ era Meen'
ngs:
D
ow
nt ow
n
Speci?c Plan
In
fras
tru
ct
Agenda Item #12.1.
a vision statement(s). Alternative scenarios should
promote developmentof underutilized land and create an urban identity for Railroad Avenue and Oak Avenue. MoneyWay should also be studied in the plan
as an opportunity area for activation based on public
feedback. The Speci?cPlan will seek opportunities for
both visitors and residents to use circulation networks to easilyaccess services and facilities throughout the
plan area and beyond the Plan’s boundaries. Changes
to developmentstandards and standards overseeing
the public realm and right-of—waymay be considered.
The alternativesshould consider information prepared
through the planning process and from outreach con- ducted.
Eachalternative shall address at a high-level:
o Achievementof a mix of uses, includingresidential
in?ll where appropriate
- Building height and increased densities, and a modal splitof reduced/consolidatedparking within the Plan area and increased transit, walking, and
bicycling
- Motor vehicle, bicycle,and pedestriancirculation
- Roadway design alternatives including sidewalk width, public amenities/furniture.and onstreet parking; for the principal stretch of Main Street, the 3D model will be used to depict potential streetscape, traf?c lanes, parking. and sidewalk changes. Approximately three principal design
options for Main Street will be explored (e.g. full
parking removal. removal/sidewalk widening in
portions or stretches by eliminating medians/leftturns, ?exible zone con?gurations, etc.), with estimates for each the number of parking spaces lost.
Additionally,streetscape cross sections and recom- mendations for Railroad, Oak and Adams will be studied.
- Location and design of public including
ability features and community facility options, illustratinghow these ?t into the built environment - Alternative Concepts (short report, with graphics), -including: Graphics illustrating the alternative land use, circulation.and urban design plans with addi- tional sketches.visualizations includingsimula- tions, 3-D streetscape concepts for Main Street, and street sections for Main, Oak.Railroad and Adams needed to convey each alternative — Quanti?eddevelopmentpotential for each alter- native
T nity Workshop #2
This will be an opportunity to providefeedbackon the
alternative concepts and preferences in an engaging
workshop.Participants will be asked to weighin on the
concepts, as well as their ideas on policiesand strategies to be incorporated as part of a Preferred Concept or in the Speci?cPlan.
- Community Workshop 2 agendaand websitenotice
- Community Workshop2. includingattendance and
facilitation, and all necessary meeting materials
- Community Workshop 2 summary
eting #2 and Joint Planning
y Council Meeting
The consultant will present the alternatives at DTSC
Meeting 2 and a Ioint Planning Commission/ City
Council meeting (city is open to a community workshopas alternate format but emphasizesimportance of engaging the City Council and Planning Commission
early in the process). At these meetings, the consultant shall use creative, interactive techniquesto understand participants' preferences.This may result in a clear
preference for one alternative or in a hybrid concept
that combines components of each. Based upon input
received, the consultant shall developa preferred concept plan alternative that will serve as the basis for the Plan. Input received will be used to re?ne the alternative and develop the preferred alternative. Meetings with community groups will be conducted, within the
overall number of project meetings speci?ed toward
the end ofthe scope.
. DTSC Meeting 2 notice/agenda
- DTSC Meeting 2, includingattendance and facilita
tion. and all necessary meeting mate-rials
- meeting (Up to four (4) consultant/stat?meetings with com munity groups, residents, business owners, etc. upon request) Task DTC Me
Com
miss
ion/
Cit
D
eli ve
rabl es
/
M
ea
tin
a
s
k
3. Com
2mu
D
el
iv
e
r
Agenda Item #12.1.
A7
PHASE 4 — SPECIFICPLAN PREPARATION
Objective:Prepare thefullDraftSpeci?cPlan, incorporating the major substantive content developedduring precedingtasks.
Task 4.1 Preparation of Preferred Concept
Plan Alternative
Based on input received at the second DTSC meeting,
community meeting. as well as input received from
other methods of community outreach, the consultant. in consultation with City staff, will developa preferred concept plan alternative.which will serve as a basis for the draft Plan. The preferredalternative may be one of the alternative scenarios or a hybrid of the
alternatives. This step will be the most important and
public outreach-intensive part of the process, so the
consultant team must propose a creative and extensive
public outreach process. The proposed preferred concept plan alternative would be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation Commission. Active Transportation and
SustainabilityCommission, and followed by Planning
Commission and City Council.who would give ?nal
direction on the preferred concept plan alternative
prior to drafting the Plan. Consultant will attend the
PlanningCommission and the City Council meetings.
with attendance at other commission meetings within
the overall project meeting limits.
Following?nalization of the Preferred Plan, Dyett 8r
Bhatia will prepare a summary of existing and projected land uses and densityfor use by infrastructure sub-consultant, and by traf?c analysiszones for use by
the transportation sub-consultant.
o DTSC Meeting 3 notice/agenda (review preferred
concept plan) . DTSCMeeting3, includingattendance and facilitation, and all necessary meeting mate-rials.if neces- DTSC Meeting 3 summary - Community Workshop3 notice/agenda Workshop 3, including attendance and facilitation, and all necessary meeting materials .
Community Workshop3 summary - Four separate meetings with the Youth Advisory Council.Economic Development Advisory Com- mission, Parks, Recreation and Culture Commis- sion. and Transportation 8r Circulation Commis- sion - Planning Commission - City Council - Re?nements to the preferred concept plan alterna- tive based on input from the City Council Task 4.2 Prepar tion of Infrastructure
Development a d Services Plan
West Yost will describe infrastructure conditions and
improvements needed to support the preferredSpeci?c
Plan land uses in terms ofwater. wastewater, and storm
drainage. We will distinguish between improvements
needed for existing versus future developmentin the
Speci?cPlan area so future costs can be appropriately
attributed.
West Yost will estimate the buildout water demands
based on the preferred alternative deter-mined in Task
3. We will compare the water supplythrough 2045 to
the projectedwater demand from the City'sIntegrated
UtilityMaster Plan as well as the City’sWater Neutrality Policy(once the current update is completedand adoptedby the City Council). Dyett 5t Bhatiawillprovide a summary of existing and projectedland use and densityin an electronic, tabular format (e.g..Microsoft Excel or GlS) for the proposedSpeci?cPlan preferred
alternative. It is our current under-standing that the
City lacks adequate water supply for future growth.
We will estimate the level of future growth that can be allowed with the available water suppliesand suggest
options for additional supplies. However, thorough
evaluations of the supplyoptions are beyond this scope
of work.
West Yost will also estimate changesin water system
flows necessary to providewater supplyto and within
the Speci?cPlan area, the current water system capacity, and improvements needed to the water system at buildout of the Speci?cPlan.
West Yost will estimate the buildout wastewater and
storm drainage ?ows based on the preferred alternative determined in Task 3. West Yost will estimate the average wastewater dry weather flow (ADWF) and the
peak wet weather ?ow (PWWF) for existing conditions, current approved development in the Speci?c changesfrom the current General Plan with the Spe- ci?c Plan. West Yost will provide planning-levelevaluations and cost estimates for the recommended water. wastewater and storm drainagesystem improvements. Note regardingwater use: TheCity has a water neutral- ity policythat all new developmentmust achieve (refer to St. Helena MunicipalCode). The Speci?cPlan will model and forecast future water demand based on the proposed Speci?cPlan preferredalternative and deter- mine any shortfalls that exist. The Water Neutrality Policyis currently beingupdatedin collaboration with a consultant under the direction of the Public Works D
el
iv
erab
le
s/
M
ee
tin
a
n
Spacific Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.
n
Department and is expectedto be adoptedin 2024. The
Speci?cPlan water analysisshould be consistent with
this updated policy that will be adopted by the City
Council.
The draft Infrastructure Development and Services
Plan will be reviewed by staff and service providers.
Any comments willbe provided back to the consultant
for correction prior to inclusion into the Speci?cPlan
I
- Draft Infrastructure Developmentand Financing
Strategy Technical Memorandum
- Incorporation of staff and agency comments to pre
pare ?nal report forinclusion in the Speci?cPlan . GlS maps of existing utilities (sewer, water, storm drain) . GIS maps noting areas of future needed upgrades (sewer. water. storm drain)
Task 4.3 Prepare Publ R
Speci?c Plan
The consultant shall prepare a draft Speci?c Plan in
compliancewith State law. The updated Plan will serve
as the City's long range, comprehensiveland use, circu
lation. and implementation plan for guiding develop
ment within the Plan boundary.The Plan shall contain
the followingcomponents:
- Land Use Plan. Description of the land uses, maps,
diagrams, policies, developmentstandards, development guidelines, massing, etc. Focus areas for future development opportunities shall be studied and highest and best land uses shall be recom- mended utilizingmodel of high revenue generation.
It is assumed any new land use standards would be
implementedas a “Downtown Speci?cPlan Overlay
Zone" and also respect the historic fabric of buildings both within and outside of the Commercial 0 motor vehicles, transit, bicycles,and pedestrians. Policiesregardingcompletestreets. Urban Design. Design and developmentstandards for development,streetscapes, lighting. and open space includingtreatments for downtown gateways. alleys,publicamenities and way?nding throughout the Plan Area, includingway?nding sign locations. For Main Street streetscape, the preferred strategy will be shown in greater detail, withkeydimensions. intersection treatments, street trees/furnishing loca- tions, etc., using 3-D Sketch Up drawings where appropriate using the model previouslycreated, and two-dimensional drawings and photos/images as appropriate.
Whom
cher Streets.The base scope includes a prototypical cross-sectional drawingeach for Oak, Railroad, and Adams. As an optional task, using Sketch Up,
recommendations for salient improvements to Oak.
Rail-road, and Adams will be made, to create a uni-
?ed look and feel for Downtown. This will include
sidewalk widths, parking recommendations (e.g.
angledparking), intersection treatments. location of
any mid-block crossings, and street trees. City will
provide information on as-built conditions; otherwise the Consultant will use estimated information using GoogleEarth or another source.
thignal “Beforeand After" View Simulations13):
Using Sketch Up, photomontages,and other techniques, before and after views will be shown from three locations, selected in consultation with Staff.
These could include, for example, Main Street or
another street with mix of existing and new buildings, an opportunity site, and Lyman Park with adjacentnew buildingat former City Hall site.
Public Services. Includes information about services and infrastructure needed to implementthe Plan. Thisshould include speci?cpoliciesregarding
utilities, public safety, parks, educational facilities, libraries, and cultural facilities.
Access and Connectivity Plan. Addresses access
to and through the Plan area, with speci?c focus
on connecting developmentwith all transportation
modes including walking, bicycling(include Napa
Vine Trail Route), driving, and transit. Accessible
designfor disabled and elderlypersons should be a
component of this section.
Implementation and Financing Plan. Identi?es
actions and strategies for Plan implementation.
alongwith completiondate estimates, phasing.and
cost estimates. The strategy will consider streetscape
Plan implementationthat may be a private devel- opment obligation.The implementationplan will be formatted and organizedto show for each action who is responsible,the timing and resources needed to implement.The analysiswillbe based on the type of Master Plan improvements sought,industry stan- dards regarding who typically pays for what, the timing of public improvements relative to private development, commitments. statutory and legal considerations, and likelihood of funding from other sources (e.g., see below), among other rele- vant factors. Financing tools considered will likely include, without limitation, the following:
STOF HELENA
ic Draft eof the
vi
ew
D
e
iv
e
rab
l
s
s
/
Agenda Item #12.1.
4 - Area-speci?cdevelopmentimpact and/or in-lieu
fees(and related reimbursement agreements).
— Special assessments and taxes (e.g., MelloRoos Community Facilities Districts, business improvement districts).
- Private contributions and exactions.
- Tax increment ?nancing mechanisms (e.g.,
Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District or Community Revitalization and Investment Authority).
Each funding tool will be evaluated based on a variety of criteria. includingwithout limitation:
- Likelyrevenue generation
- Ease of adoption and implementation
— Cost burden and incidence
- Flexibilityover time
- Stakeholdersupport
An administrative draft Plan shall be prepared for
review byCity staff.Comments received shall be incorporated into the publicreview draft Plan. One meeting will be held with DTSC (#4) on policybrainstorming
during Speci?cPlan preparation.
- Administrative Draft #1 Speci?cPlan
0 Administrative Draft #2 Speci?cPlan
- Public Review Draft Speci?cPlan
The consultant shall conduct DTSC and Community
Meetings, meetings with the Parks and Recreation
Commission, Active Transportation 8r Sustainability
Commission, PlanningCommis sion, and City Coun
cil and any other method of outreach, followingprep
ent the Plan and to receive public comment and input within the limit of the overall number of meetings established forthe project - DTSCMeeting4 notice agenda .
DTSC Meeting 4. includingattendance and facilita tion. and meeting materials.if neces sary .DTSC Meeting 4 summary - Four separate meetings with the Parks.and Recre ation Commission. Active Transportation & Sus tainabilityCommission - PlanningCommission meeting to review draft Spe
ci?c Plan.includingattendance and presentation
- City Council meeting to review draft Speci?c Plan
includingattendance and presentation
- Up to 4 (four) consultant/staffmeetings with com munity groups. residents, business owners, etc. as needed Task 4.5 Commu
#4
Conduct a community workshop open to present the
Draft Downtown Speci?c Plan and solicit feedback.
This could be conducted as a formal workshop,drop
in open house, or a community event.
o Community Workshop4 notice/agenda
- Community Workshop4, includingattendance and
facilitation, and all necessary meeting materials
- Community Workshop4 summary
Task 4.6 Speci?
Referrals
State Law requires consultation with a variety of Fed
eral, State, regional, and local agencies whenever a
jurisdiction updates or emends its general plan (e.g.,
Native American Tribes, Military Branches.Airport
Land Use Commission). These statutes are located
throughout the Government Code and have varying
requirements for when draft and ?nal documents must
be submitted and how longagencies have to review and
provide comments. The consultants will maintain a
checklist of agency consultation requirements that we will use to ensure the City providesthe Speci?cPlan to the appropriate agencies. For budgetingpurposes, it is
assumed that only tribal consultation will be needed,
for which DBrBwill prepare a letter and ?le that with
State agencies
Tribal consultation letter re Final Draft of the Specific The consultant shall prepare a ?nal draft Speci?cPlan based on comments received during the review period in Task 4.3. .Final Draft Speci?cPlan Task Con Meetings Decisionduct Maker on Revie Draft of Plan the Speci?c w nit
y
House
c Cons and
ultati
on
Tas
k
—Prepa 4
.7
Pla n
D
el
iv
erabl e
s/
D
eli ve
rabl es
/
M
ee
ri
D
aw
nt ow
n
Specific Plan
D
el
iv
e
r
D
el
iv
e
r
D
el
iv
era
Agenda Item #12.1.
srl
HASE 5 — PLAN ADOPTI
Task 5.1 — Environmental Revie
The consultant will coordinate with the City regarding
the type of environmental clearance determined appropriate for the Plan buildout. The City has an important goalof streamliningthe environmental review process
forsubsequentdevelopmentprojects that are consistent
with the Downtown Speci?cPlan.
The project could use the adoptedGeneral Plan EIR for
CEQAclearance if the land use buildout is within the
scope of the General Plan. However, it is anticipated
that General Plan and zoning map amendments may
be needed, and thus additional environmental review
would be required. We believe that an EIR Addendum is likelyto suf?ce should no new impacts result.
Should new impacts result, a SupplementalEIR may be
appropriate; the basic e?'ort of the two would be similar, however, the SupplementalEIR will require public noticing (preparation of a NOP. scoping meeting, circulation of Draft EIR, and preparation and certi?cation of the Final EIR, which would add to the cost). This EIR Addendum would be detailed.would need to re?ect
HousingElement additional developmentas well as the
Speci?cPlan, and will cover the followingtopics:
Air Quality. Updated analysis of emissions under
buildout
Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change.
UpdatedGHG emissions and energy calculations
Land Use, Population, and Housing. Updated information to re?ect increased buildout Public Services. Updated water and wastewater
demand, based on infrastructure analysis Technical
Memorandum
Transportation and Tra?ic. While forCEQApurposes
is to be used, at the time the General Plan EIR was pre- pared LOS was still the CEQAcriteria, and VMT was providedfor informational purposes. If an EIR Adden— dum is prepared,the same thresholds/informationwill be repeated.If a SupplementalFocused EIR is prepared, VMT thresholds will be used. Our scope includes prep- aration of both LOS calculations for 13 intersections (which would include as well as VMT, which would provide ?exibility in appropriate environmental docu- ment determination.
DKS will estimate the VMT impacts of the preferred
concept plan based on a single new model run of the
Napa SolanoActivity Based travel demand model (this
model run will also support developmentof future
intersection turning movement forecasts). This model
is maintained jointly by the Napa Valley Transportation Authorityand the Solano Transportation Authority. The horizon year and land use of this model have been recently updated to correspond to the regional
transportation plan. Plan BayArea 2050.
VMT will be reported for informational purposes in
the EIR. Should a SupplementalEIR be needed, DKS
will compare the resultingVMT metrics (home-based
VMT per population and home-based work VMT per
job) forthe speci?c plan area to the appropriate threshold of signi?cance (e.g. SB 743 implementationstudy that the City may be preparing or a regionalmetric).
No Initial Studywill be prepared — the Addendum does
not require an Initial Studyor any public circulation.
W“ the City determines
that a SupplementalEIR is needed, we would need
to work with the City to de?ne the scope of the HR.
This would include preparing an NOP, scoping meeting, Draft SupplementalEIR. and Final Supplemental EIR. If the topics and the basic analysisstays the same as in the EIR Addendum, the additional cost may be +/-
$30,000 (assuming that responses to comments do not
require more than 80 hours).
Wm below
outlinesthe scope for new (focused or Subsequent)EIR,
should it be determined that new EIR is needed. The
scope covers topics likely to result after careful initial screening based on a detailed Initial Study that will be done.Components of this will include: . Initial Study (138(3). D8rB will prepare an Initial Study to screen out for resources not
Speci?cPlan. The General Plan EIR will be cited as a resource as needed. Thesewould likelyinclude:
- Agriculture]ForestryResources
— BiologicalResources
- Geology/Soils Hydrology.Water Quality- Mineral Resources — Noise Tribal Cultural Resources Wild?re
OF STHELENA
Agenda Item #12.1.
i!
- NOP and Scoping (DBrB). DSrBwill prepare a NOP
to be submitted to all responsibleand trustee agencies and to the public.informing them that the City is initiating the environmental review required
for the Speci?c Plan. During the 30-day scoping
period, D8rB will prepare a PowerPoint presentation and meeting materials for a public meeting that will be held to take comments on issues to be
addressed in the EIR. . Draft EIR (D818, with DKS, WYA). DSKBwillprepare a project description that out-lines the components of the Speci?c Plan and provides quanti- ?ed projections of the population, housing. and
employmentthat would result from implementation. Developmentof mitigation measures and policies concurrentlywill be an iterative process in concert with ?nalization of the Speci?cPlan.such that goals, policies, and implementationmeasures can be used as mitigation measures.where appropriate, to ensure the Plan is self-mitigating to the extent
possible.The project descriptionwill form the basis
for the environmental analysis and will be submitted to City staff for review prior to commencing work on the technical analysis.
The D&B team will prepare an Administrative
Draft, Screencheckand Public Review Draft EIR. To
streamline environmental review and optimize the
timeline for completionof the project, the analysis
will draw on the specialstudies described later, as well as technical and specializedanalysesprepared in previous tasks. The Administrative Draft EIR
will contain the followingchapters:
— Introduction
- Executive Summary
- Project Description
- Environmental Analysis
— Airesthetics Quality Energy
- GreenhouseGas Emissions
— Historic Resources
- Hazards and Hazardous Materials
— Land Use, Planningand Population/Housing— Public Services and Water Supply - Recreation
Transportation
Utilities
- Other CEQAConsiderations. The EIR will discuss
growth inducement, irreversible commitment of
resources, and issues that were found not to be signi?cant during the scoping process. . Alternatives. The EIR will address a minimum of two alternatives (No Project and at least another
alternative) that could feasiblyattain the basic project objectives. Determination of speci?c alternatives will be done in coordination with City staff, and it is anticipated that some of the alternatives
developed earlier in the planning process will be
used to develop feasible alternatives for the EIR.
Followingapproval of the Screencheck Draft EIR,
the D8rB team will coordinate with the City for the
publication and publicreview of the Draft EIR.
- Final EIR (D&B). After close of the 45-day com- ment period, DBrBwill bracket and number each individual comment received within each com- ment letter and any comments received during the public hearing and will prepare responses to each
comment. Because it is not possible to anticipate
the number and extent of comments, our budget
assumes that 80 hours ofstaff time will be suf?cient.
DBrBwill prepare an Admin and ScreencheckDraft
FEIR for internal review along with a Final document for circulation ahead of hearings.
The additional (additional to the $63,300 for the Elk
Addendum in the scope) cost of the Elk (including Initial Study, NOP, and Draft and Final EIR) will be $52,000 (for a total EIR cost of $115,300). Should
a noise analysis be desired, that would add another
$10,000 to the cost.
- EIR Addendum
EIR NOD. D&B ing appropriate documents with the State Clearing- house and the City with the County TASK 5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC The HEARING consultant will facilitate a public hearing with the Planning Commission to review and make a rec- ommendation to the City Council regardingthe Spe- ci?c Plan. The consultant team will make re?nements to the Plan based on Planning Commission input, if required.
D
ow
n
tow
n
Spaninc Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.
- Review and input on staffreport for meeting
- PowerPoint presentation
- Presentation
Council Adoptl
The Consultant will facilitate a City Council public
hearing to adoptthe Speci?cPlan.
- Review and input of staff report for meeting
- Presentation
l Specific Plan
Followingpublicreview of the Speci?c Plan.the Con
sultant will prepare the Final Speci?cPlan.
. Final Speci?cPlan
UDIES
In order to completethe scope of work, it is anticipated that the following technical studies will be needed
(additional studies for the purposes of the CEQAdocu
ment may alsobe necessary):
Parking Study
DKS will contract for the collection of all on-street and off-streetparking(up to 10 private lots) occupancy data for the study area. The inventory will include all on
street and off-street parking suppliedwithin the speci?c plan boundaries. The inventory will classify offstreet parking by private or public and note the hourly parking rate, if applicable.On-street parking spaces by block facewill be counted as marked versus unmarked,
metered or not, and any parking restrictions by time of dayor lengthof use will be noted. The presence of ADA
accessible spacesfor both off-street and on street parking will be noted. counts periods: weekdaymidday.weekdayevening. and Satur— daymidday. For future conditions.DKSwill:
o Model Parking Demand during the weekday mid- day,weekdayevening. and Saturday midday periods based on preferredLand Use Plan .
Calculate spaces lost from full or partial removal of parking on both sides of Main Street be-tween Adams Avenue and Spring Street (ULI report option) - Compare total parking demand during the peak
periods with the preferred Land Use Plan to the
remaining availableparking inventory and calculate
the additional publicparking supplyneeded to bring
average occupancy to no more than 85 percent
- Recommendations on what publicparking facilities
or strategies. including metering or timing limitation. fee strategies. etc. are needed downtown based on calculationsabove . Should signi?cant additional parkingsupplybe rec- ommended, DKS will prepare unit cost estimates for surface parking that can be used to implementan
in-lieu fee.
DKSwill prepare a traf?c studyto focus on intersection
operationalanalysisto support the ExistingConditions
Report and developmentof the preferredconcept plan.
For the tra?ic operational analysis.DKS will describe
the existing roadwaynetwork within the Speci?c Plan
area. map the study intersections. and supply a table
summarizing existing intersection operations. Existing
and future intersection operations willbe characterized using primarilyHighwayCapacity Manual methods as
implemented in the Synchro software package.This
scope does not include traf?c simulation (Simtra?c).
The intersection operationalanalysiswill be conducted
under the followingparameters:
- Up to 13 study intersections. to be determined in
consultation with the project team
- Studyperiodsto include weekdaymorning. weekday
afternoon.and weekend(Saturday)peakhours
For existing conditions analysis. recent turning move- ment counts are assumed to be available from the City’s Streets Master Plan project and are not included in this scope and budget.
movement a single future land use scenario to re?ect the preferred concept plan.Weekdayintersection turning movement forecasts will be developedfrom recent turning move- ment counts and outputs from the Napa SolanoActiv- ity Basedtravel demand model. Since the Napa Solano model does not include a weekend scenario. weekend turning movement forecasts will be based either on the middaymodel volumes or factors derived from the ReplicaPlacesweekdayand weekend scenarios. Two future network alternatives will be studied for the operationalanalysis:
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
CFOR Deliverable.
SPECIAL
8.TStudy
ra
f
?
c
T
as
k
—5.3 City A
.
T
a
s
k
—Fina 5.4
'o
n
H
ea
rin
g
D
o
cum
Agenda Item #12.1.
- With current roadwaycon?guration of Main Street
between Adams and Spring Street and Hunt Avenue
to remain open
- Removal of center turn lane on Main Street between
Adams and Spring Street and closure of Hunt Avenue between Main Street and Railroad Avenue Additional network scenarios will be analyzed as optionaltasks requiring additional budget.
DKS will summarize analysismethods and ?ndings in
a technical memorandum.
thignal Traf?c qunt for13Intersections:Additional
cost for collectingand processing data for 13 intersections for three periods(AM and PM peak period. and weekend peak period) will be $7,260. DKS would also
need the operationalmodel ?les from the General Plan
that were done byFehr and Peers; if these are not available.additional $3,000 would be needed. {1' 19“..” B l ll l5
_ LQsLThebase scope of work provides for intersection
operations analysisof two future scenarios: No Build
and Proposed Improvements (e.g.. Main Street CTL
removal and closure of Hunt). If additional scenarios
need to be analyzed. for example, improvements on Main Street but Hunt remaining open, DKS estimates $5,440 per additional scenario.
. Existing conditions intersection operationalanalysis to be summarized in tabular format - Map ofstudyintersections . Draft and ?nal technical memorandum c. Market and Fiscal Study
EPS will evaluate the market conditions and trends
in the Speci?cPlan. The analysiswill consider both local and national trends, including a focus on the commercial sector linked to tourism (e.g.,retail. dining, hospitality,accommodations). EPS will lever- age information from previous market studies con- ducted for the City with updated research and analysis to account for post-pandemictrends in retail, tourism. hospitalityIand the St. Helena's competitive attributes in this context. Among other things, the study will identify the market prospects for developmentcon- cepts at key opportunity sites identi?ed as part of the study process.
EPS will developan interactive ?scal model to estimate and compare how various land use concepts will a?'ect the City's General Fund budget.Speci?cally.the
analysiswill compare the likelykeyGeneral Fund revenues (e.g. property. sales, and hotel taxes) with the cost of providingmunicipalservices (e.g.publicsafety,
infrastructure maintenance) for each land use programs being considered in the Concept Plan Alternatives (see Task 3). The analysiswill inform selection of a preferredConcept Plan and support other City goals
as well as be integrated into the Implementation and
Financing Plan developedin Task 4.3.
SCOPE OF WORK ASSUMPTIONS
The Scope of Work and Budget are based on the followingassumptions:
- Environmental Analysis Budget. The budget for
the FIR Addendum is an estimate, but should likely
be good unless topics outlined in Task 5.1 in our
scope are changed.The additional budgetfor a SupplementalElR is an estimate and is based on analysis limited to the topics shown in Task 5.1 but with inclusion of NOP, a scoping meeting, tribal consultation. and 80 hour allocation for response to com- ments on the Draft EIR (Final EIR). - Consolidated Comments and Direction. City staff
will provide a single set of consolidated.non-con- ?icting comments on the review drafts of all documents, and documents will be ?nalized following consultant incorporation of staff comments. Where
multiple re-view drafts are provided in the Scope
(e.g. for the Speci?c Plan document). subsequent
reviews will be limited to changesmade in response
to comments previously provided or correction
of errors, rather than changesto work previously
accepted or changesin methodologiesor assumptions.
in via or trans- fer service. Staff review drafts will be provided in Microsoft Word for documents that do not include high level of graphics. No printing of plans or reports is assumed. D8rB will also provide native electronic ?les of all documents created by the con- sultant team upon completionof the project
—
these may be in Word or for graphic-intensivedocuments. in Adobe lnDesign. Maps will be provided in Illus- trator or ArcGlS format.depending on native for- mat.
Analysis and Trends Condi
tions
D
ow
nt ow
n
Speci?c Plan
F
isc
a
l
Anal
ysis
D
el
iv
era
Agenda Item #12.1.
5'
WV
eallocation byTasleubconsultant. Dyett & Bhaa reserves the right to reallocatebudget by task or nsultant team member.provided the overall proj ct budgetis not affected
ncreased Costs Due to Delay and Suspension.
hould the project extend for more than three years
for no fault of consultant.or the project is suspended
for longer than three months for no fault of consultant, additional budget may be needed for delay/ additional start-up costs, as reasonablyagreedupon
byCity and DBKB.
Our scope/budget include the following number of
total meetings. The scope may note addition-al meetings beyond those noted below; those meetings will be staff responsibility. Additional meetings can be
included for additional budget.
City staff: Bi-Weeklymeetings: 40 hour-long meetings assumed (allowing for holidays and periods, such as EIR public review) over a two-year period;
virtual, with the kickoff meeting followed by a site
tour in person if desired. Optional additional meetings as out-lined in the scope Community Workshops or Open Houses: 4; in-person or virtual Community Survey: 1
Stakeholder meetings: 6 to 8 hour-long meetings
conducted at project outset; assumed virtual
Other groups/businesses etc.: informal meetings. 6
to B; assumed virtual
Downtown Steering Committee: 4; assumed virtual;
an initial meeting can also be done in person without additional cost PlanningCommission and City Council: 5. including on joint meeting; assumed in per-son up to 4 or 5 if virtual with time-certain attendance, with additional ones to be conducted by staff Meeting R sibilities and Products
. Dyett 8r Bhatia will prepare agendas,meeting materials, print drawings and handouts for all public workshops.D&B will also prepare agendas for all
DTSC meetings, and prepare PowerPoints for all
publicand decision-makermeetings
- D&B will providemeeting summaries for all public
meetings and DTSCmeetings
- DBrBwill prepare and maintain a project website
where information on upcoming meetings will be
posted
- City staff will be responsible for conducting any
additional meetings (e.g. with additional commu
nity groups or additional commission) beyond those
speci?edas consultant responsibilityabove
- Planning Commission and City Council meeting
recordings/minutes will be prepared by the City, as per norm - City staff will be responsiblefor preparing and dis
tributing any meeting notices and staff reports . City staff will be responsiblefor providingcommu nity meeting space and any drinks or refreshments
OF ST. HELENA
espon
Cons
ultant
Agenda Item #12.1.
191:
Km Nu Nv h- an n» A: m-
"Theschedule proposed for t
h
i
s
ispresented pr in
oje
ct
a ?ow chart on the followin
g
and products pKey
a
g
e
.
meetings are shown per th
e
task description
a
s
in the Scope of Work. The g
r
a
p
h
i
c
shows 15-month a
schedule leading to release PDraft of Review
u
bl
ic
the Speci?cPlan and the Elk With another
two months of hearings,the shou beadopted in
ld about 17 months from proje
ct
Should asta Supplert. mental ElR be needed, two should beadded to the schedule, for a total of 19
Bhatia has been able 8r todeliver similar and Dyett on
timeframes. even For tighter we example, completed
the full drafts review public of the Windsor Down
Area town/Station Plan and full Draft Speci?c new EIR
months after in14ception. project
with adoption.
Comulum
E?un
Kkk-o? Heeling
anProduct
3 “
Sta keh
old
er
"
Cummiuion Ham"; Final Produn Dmmwn Sue?n; ‘3Mum; Cumming: mean; Cummuniry
can»: Survey 0-1 mu: Hearing FWM" Workshop! In\"nun; mr Ham: Open vle wx
Jan Feb‘ Mar May july Aug. Sept 0:: Nov June
422% #3
chmm Cumunl Mminu Eng-gun msnnm
1 ExistingCunduaonx Woman»! and Inlual eunuch 1ram-m
Sump-d. csm R
nPlln
Jmpg/cc mum
Frill"
mu
S
C
H
é
DUL
E
Mminl} r m‘ pw 5mm: u. m
m
-:
Add! umEll "
City o
f
Hel Downtown Plan Speo?c
ena
2014
Plvhnq R- can"!!! III
Ind M??tl
Emma. c-I Marin
Pr
op
os
ed
Schedule
1 Content Almmmv
u
4 Speci?cP
la
I C
uAmdm
ine
ixm
me
lk
um" and Re; can
c
Punnm
and ma y
s and
Adv [Id
[)Y
E
T
I‘
BkBHA'HA 5.
] Adden EI dum R
A Pa5m,
rki ng
O
Ex
En
ini ndi w
a TSandy
ra
‘ Dim-" I?
Agenda Item #12.1.
mm.
is
Sr. Hala- Dawnwwn Spod?e Plan
The worksheets on the followingpagesshow hours and
budget by task for all team members. The guaranteed
maximum feesfor our proposed scope of work identi-
?ed in our proposalis $402,957 without the environmental work.With $63.30() for the Elk Addendum (as described in Task 5.1),the total budgetis $466,257.
The worksheet also shows several optional tasks;
should the City wish to include all optional items
listed in the budget(with the exception of a Focus EIR) along with a contingency amount of $983, the total
budget would be $500,000. This does not include the
expandedcost for a Subsequentof Focus EIR, should it
be determined at a later stage that that this needed.
Fees include all personnel costs.sub-contractors’ costs, and direct costs, and deliveryof productsidenti?ed in
the Scope of Work. Sub-contractors’ costs and direct
costs will be billed with no administrative markup or handling fee. The fees will not be exceeded provided there are no changesin the Scopeof Services. Assumptions for the scope. includingassumed meeting attendance, are outlined toward the end of Section 2.2.
Ill—d I» a mu
Men Sharla.Prlndpal-ln-Owge «I II a m I: m I s I In is Andrew Hill.Meagan; Prinde I: III II )n I u u w Helen Plural", Anna-u :u «I n no I an m I Clare Kucen. Awash" II lb II In Karen Chant. Planner 2‘ u u 52 Dmkl Hint Urban DellplerlPlII-mer n so III) In In as Spqdalln w «I M II m m 20 Web DealganrojeuAnimm so u 14 to II In 4 In :I SIM I“ I“ IN «a ll Ll“ ‘ ID 0 LI" I‘D 1'.Kim, Principal z z I 2 E Van. PrelimHunger II I: II II sI u D. Blodc5r. Engineer . J I I ll 1 Carney. PrelenEn'lMer . I II II I A Ha; Anodau Engineer . II 14 so 11 1-Hello.5r. Dull"Erma“: 1 z B.Cnn. Orin Ednurnr - I l Aulmnx Engineer - )I ll 7‘ ll Aulmm Planner - In M u I) Frye“ Coer?murlAdmln I I SM 2! - - - - 3 III “I - III N jun-I l Maud, I 1 I M q 54. 15 n munanry I z 1 I0 I I9 54 u w l I l 34 I 1! - - ’0 I“ I Terence Bemmley. Prlndpal ll :4 n a II Chlre Vladi.Airedale as 4| 1| loo Ion Inn GneL And“: I] :4 10 SI 54
”THU 40 9‘ D as
Don; Moore Palm Manager I I I I I II
Melln: Duly. Summer I I I I I! n
Par-rid lollnmn.Sewer and Rouble Water I I I I4 II II Sun Eiglneer II 2 I so 41 n 7) Mannyllmenu.as names" I 4 u n It ' 4I! 41 1‘1 156 I1"
rm I z
c
'9'“
(m
an
u
al
' “ "m" an
d
1m: 1
rmml1I
Hump m
(mMow-hrmmmmAu (mm Mon: and 5m, MSway mu ram. hulk rum”an!“ Sway Ennuwaml w) B
U
D
G
M
IW
S
y
n- m
:
”CU
E
S
TASK IV D
K
S
An
na
”!
Agenda Item #12.1.
m.
. w . . . . ..
Sr. Halon:Downtown Spod?c Plan
Mun 3|“th Principal-Imam;- as ”Joe NJ” qu: I7.Iso 3.1150 um um um um sun Andrlw HIILhnklpuln‘ Pvlndpal :45 1M msu 1120 7.)” IJN mm . . . mm lu au
HIIINHunon. Anna-u Iss “so mm mm muse Lm sum . . . 14.1w ch:- Knurl. Ancchn Iss - - - Lao . um - - - Lac Karin Cray-I. Phnmr HS - mo . . . use . . - MIG Dunk] Hana. Urban DIanv/I’lannlr us .
I.m 7.1m Imn - 11m - - - nun . as Spuhllu Iss . 9,100 «mo lama Lun mm mm Wlb DuipIIPrulla Animal Ina um um um «no um um Iuoo Dlnu Cam In moo um moo um um 5.1m . Sub-nu! mm «as am nu» Inn nu- In! um Ls! 1mm 4 n:
- TIKllm,Prlndpll ns sso «so . mm
E Van. Prolu:Mam" no 7.2M - - - - 1.1- ulo MID - mm
DIslut. Sr. Enlinnr
1so . . . . . . no no . Lson 1 Fanny. PrclmEIIgInur IIs - . . . . - 1m 1.1m - 1.5m A Hu‘.Annchll Enlln- ans . . . . - . mm «m
. um
1.Huld. Sr. Dulgn Engiu r us - - - . - - ua . - m . B.Cruz 0-“: mer no - s . . . . um - - mu . Animus EII‘IIInr I99 . . - - - - 7,110 mm . NM: Ant-Ian: Hum-r m . . . . . . mm mm - IIJW PmloezCurdnawrleln II! In - . . . II! - IIs DIm: Cam mm tuna SM 1.11s - - - - 7.)” sun 11.7w - 1mm It l
JuanMoody m use an no um um H.040 - - 1w ml: . H-pn 5"qu ms In an: no loss was zuvs - . mm mus . DIr-a Com so so so Isa Inn 250 SM uso I.I4II Lln IUIB I»! m - - non ans Tomc- Bowl-y, Prlndpal m . 1.1“: mm mu: m
cI-Ir- Vluh.Anndul nu . mo uu 1,540 ) 000 Nm GouLAmchu no - Lao m 2.400 Am SILT“ - 1J8 mm H.“ - luau nun
Doug Moon Prey-I: Mung-r Isl m Isl m as LIIIs Minn: Duffy. StanIIwu-r III In I,1II I la nu 5.04 Purkkjuhmun. Sway and Punhl- W In an 1.4". nu 4.21: we Sun Balk-u:-ll us no Lac MN 15 II ".7“! MumyleII-nu.GI: Tnhnkhn I‘D . no no mm: 7.510 ElizabethDay-r. Wu-r SM )5: )5! 1m 7m zuo I I Mnlnlmdn II III - m an Au .2 ms 1 7 157 t M t w W TOTAL «mo a sun Luau : mm a nun mmm u b
u
t!
) Tod. hd. El Mn ‘ “£
15 1 W
15 Adam-I Wnldy hog-u Phi-pm Hum ! w a" ham K-uum-nh?wl 3 Imp. mm... In! Out.Adult-.1“! lulrold s umw sun-am 0) s 1' um I.» u ”mum": sx m
Youdop-Ih—nlc-n'q 3
ImnInIM-m)
rm
crmJYukl 5I41AManagua .
' Ham; hm
5'" mmrnq
nA m. Can- mum
“Km,“ 711 l:1"“"m'" runaway (7:: My? Pal-I'M W!” mm
"mm“ '5'va Dun-ch
I
D
ow
nt ow
n
Plan Spaci?c
symm- D
EA
-
lo
c
Yet:
Agenda Item #12.1.
R
E
S
U
Agenda Item #12.1.
Master of City Planning
Master of Landscape Architecture
University of California.Berkeley
RegentsFellow
ThomasChurchAwnrdfor Design
(?rst prize)
OutstandingGraduateStudent
Instructor Award
Bachelor of Architecture
(First Class)
Schoolof Planningand Architecture.
New Delhi.India
Mr. Bhatia's projects have won 30+
awards from the American Plan
ning Association.as well as awards
from the Urban Land Institute and
the Congress for New Urbanism.
and the Ahwahnee Award. He has
been Fellowof the German Academic
ExchangeService (DAAD) and the
Asian Cultural Council (Rockefeller
Rajeev Bhatia is a planner and urban designer. whose work is place-based,cen tered on fosteringlivableand sustainable communities. He is one of BayArea's most experiencedplanners. with 30 years of experience in leading dozens of Bay Area speci?cplans. general plans, Ele. and other planningassignments. as well as projects throughoutthe Western United States, with current clients for urban designassignments including San Diego, Honolulu.Oceanside.City of Los Angelesamong others. He is well versed in community participation and engagement. and in working with diverse community groups and decision makers.and ?nding common ground
He bringsexceptionalexperience in preparing BayArea downtown and other speci?c plans (about one dozen completed).combined with vast experience in workingin Napa and Sonoma counties, includingfour generalplansin the two counties (includingrecentlyCity of Napa) as wellas severalspeci?c plans (recentlySonoma DevelopmentalCenter and Santa Rosa Downtown.and previ ouslyWindsor Downtown). Within the last three years he has also completed the Union City Station Area Speci?cPlan.Livermore Isabel Neighborhood (Station Area) Speci?cPlan.and BayhillSpeci?cPlan (San Bruno). He has also led completeEIRs on most of these assignments. He bringsfamiliaritywith St Helena.havingserved as Participating Principalon the General Plan update.
Projects led by Mr. Bhatia are shapingsome of the most livable and vibrant communities in California. Examplesinclude the Downtown San Diego Plan (with 15.00:) housingunits built and approvedsince plan was adopted15 years ago).the Capitol Area Plan in Sacramento for the State of California(which has shapedthe largestState office developmentin California‘s history in a mixed use TOD setting). and MilpitasStation Area Speci?c Plan (with 7.000 housing units plannedaround future BART station). He recentlycompletedstation area planning for Honolulu's new urban rail.includingplanningfor the most intense areas (Downtown, including proposal for a new high-risedistrict adjacentto Downtown) and the most transformative corridor (Kalihi). as well as advising the city on a new citywide framework for station area zoning.
Relevantexperience includes:
Sonoma DevelopmentalCenter Speci?cPlanand Elk
BayhillSpeci?cPlan (San Bruno; incorporates YouTubeheadquarters expansion) and EIR .SharpPark Speci?cPlan (Paci?ca) and EIR - Union City Station Area Speci?cPlanand Elk .
ElCamino Real/ChestnutArea Speci?cPlan (South San Francisco) and EIR - Serramonte/CollinsMaster Plan.Colma Santa Rosa Downtown Speci?c Plan and EIR Specifi
c
Pla Design and Urban
ns
Bay Ar ea
Ra
je
ev
Bhati AICP
a,
Ur
ban
and Plznnerx Reglnnzl E
d
u
c
Pr
in
ci
pa
A
w
ar
Agenda Item #12.1.
San PabloAvenue Speci?cPlan (San Pablo) and EIR
ValleyFair Santana Row Master Plan (San 1056)
Winchester BoulevardMaster Plan (San Jose)
Livermore Station Area ("Isabel Neighborhood”)Speci
?c
Pand EIR
l
an MilpitasStation Area Speci?c Plan and Elk
Santa Clara Station Area Plan and Elk
San José (Diridon) Station Area Plan
LakeMerritt Station Area Speci?c Plan and Elk (
Downto wn
Oakl
and) Windsor Downtown/Station Area Speci?cPlan and Elk
PleasantonDowntown Speci?c Plan
Genentech Campus Master Plan (South San Francisco)
BioMarin Campus Master Plan (San Rafael)
ElCamino RealCorrdior Plan and Zoning EIR (South Fra
nci
sco
)
BrisbaneBaylandsSpeci?cPlan (City ledalternative)
Extensive experie
nce,
for incl speci?c plans; downtowns such most asudi
ng
Windsor.San Di
eg
o.
and mixed-use for Chicago regulations San (recently
; Diego);corridors Real and Camino South asSan Francisco, El inTDM parkingregulati
ons.
for and Genentech BioMarin inCampus, Campus
cl
ud
in
g
(San Rafael). Un
der
wa
y
(all standards for cityw Oakland objective design
ide uses except
indust
rial).
Mr. Bhatia led over comprehensiv California general plans throughout 35 e (including2
0 Park, Area Santa Rosa,ohnert and Petaluma including Bcities. ay in Sonomarinclude completed Recently general and plans Napa (city) ongoing ge
ne
ral
include Oakland, plan and Sacramento Fair?eld. Oceanside. s
OceansideCorridors Plan and Elk
Hillcrest FocusArea (San Diego)
Honolulu Station Are
a P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Mission ValleyCom
munit
y
(San Pl and Diego) Elk
CapitalArea Plan.Sa
cram
en
to
(client: California) of State
San Diego Downtown
More and comple speci?c including program asgeneral plans. EIRs. 35 te well sPlan for Area Regional Transportation Bay SCSI MTC. ev e
ral
P
ro
g
ra
Envnon ReVIew
memal
Ur ban
Regional and Planner:
O
ut
S
Id
e
Bay Area G
en
eral
Plans
Agenda Item #12.1.
2022 APA California Statewide
Award of Excellence. Santa Rosa
Downtown Station Are Speci?cPlan
zon APA Northern California
Award of Excellence.
Comprehensive Plan, Santa Rosa
Downtown Station Are Speci?c Plan
2018 APA Award of Excellence.
Vallejo General Plan Update and HR
2018 APA Award of Merit. Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan Update
2016 AEP Outstanding Public
Involvement Award. Palo Alto
ComprehensivePlan
2008 Clear Vistas Design
Competition. Regina.SK
St. Helena General Plan and EIR. Andrew assisted t
h
e
with the Ci comple
ty tion of a targetedupdate to the General Plan, focused policies in cor p
or at
in
g
to address new State requirements that have come into the since was plan last updatedand extending the horizon year of the p
lan
.
central the issu toes effort include growth management. economic develo pment
,
histori resource c preservation, publicsafety.and agriculturalpreservat ion.
An also led the
dre w
EIRon the Plan.
Santa Rosa Downtown Station Are Speci?c Plan and And led multi a rew disciplinaryteam in preparing the Santa Rosa Downto wn Stat Area Speci?c
ion Plan (DSASP) Update.which comprehensivelyretoole
d
thate aserves aspl
an blueprint for developmentand preservation in a 720- acre the ar surroun
ading Downtown SMART Station at the heart of the city. DS incorporate AS sP
innovative new strategies and standards to incentivi ze hig transit
hde
nsi
ty.
oriented projects. remove barriers to development,i and connec tivity walkability.heightensense of place, and help realize Rosa’s Santa full potential.By combiningrigorous background an
al
ys
is
with athoughtful.
inclusiveapproach to stakeholder and community en
g
ag
em
ent
.
the planning
process generateda bold plan that garnered widespread
the com insupp
ort munity and was adopted unanimously by the City C
ou
nc
il.
theopathvin
g successfulimplementation.
Union City Station District Speci?c Plan and Elk.transform to a 47o-acre area around the Union City BART Statio
n.
tUnio Station City
nh
e District Speci?c Plan seeksto foster a largemixeduse with sub unique
districts.complementedbyengaging and attractive p
u
bl
ic
with multiple spa
ces. new streets and pedestrian/biking connection to en ha
nc
e
walk conne
ctivity ability, and access. Andrew was a participating princi pal
the Bhatia on8r Dyett
that led preparation of the plan and also worked suc
ces
sfu
lly
behalf of then City with architects and owners of a keysite in the p l
a
n
enhance walk are to
a ability, orchestrate densities to capitalizeon BARTac ce
ss,
and foster enhanced
publicrealm and integration with the broader Station
Andrew Hill is an awardwinning
urban with land planner use expertise in
planning.community engage
ment,
and evironm Innovative review.
ental collaborative.his work is roo
ted
sustainable acommitment toinstrong place
makingand meaningfulstak
ehol
der
involv has led He multi-disciplinary
ement
.
teams in preparing long ran
ge
for pl communities throughout California.
a
n
s
and he possessesover 15years and leadership pr experience managem ent oj ec
t
in the ?elds of planning,cons
truct
ion
and Apartic engineering. managem
ent. ular focusofAndrew'srecent has been facilitate ondeveloping tostrategies in?ll developmentin strategic climate and resilience, engage promote residentswhomay not norma
lly
civic proesses. pain
rti
ci
pa
te
Master of U
rb
an
(MUP) Plan
ning McGillUniv
ersit
y Honors Bac
hel or
(BA Hons) of Arts
University o
f
Ontario
Hill R
e
c
e
nt
Assig
nment
s
Ur hznand Plznner: Regional E
d
u
c
a
Pr
in
ci
pa
A
w
ar
Agenda Item #12.1.